Tim Hochberg wrote: <snip>
This would work fine if repr were instead:
dtype([('x', float64), ('z', complex128)])
Anyway, this all seems reasonable to me at first glance. That said, I don't plan to work on this, I've got other fish to fry at the moment.
A new point: Please remind me (and probably others): when did it get decided to introduce 'complex128' to mean numarray's complex64 and the 'complex64' to mean numarray's complex32 ? I do understand the logic that 128 is really the bit-size of one (complex) element - but I also liked the old way, because: 1. e.g. in fft transforms, float32 would "go with" complex32 and float64 with complex64 2. complex128 is one character extra (longer) and also (alphabetically) now sorts before(!) complex64 3 Mostly of course: this new naming will confuse all my code and introduce hard to find bugs - when I see complex64 I will "think" the old way for quite some time ... These might just be my personal (idiotic ;-) comments - but I would appreciate some feedback/comments. Also: Is it now to late to (re-)start a discussion on this !? Thanks - Sebastian Haase