On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 14:31, Colin J. Williams wrote:

Nadav Horesh wrote:

...

Recently I had an idea to subclass numarray's array in order to implement a different scheme of array indexing via the __call__ method (ugly indeed, by my experience shows that it can be useful). It occurred to me that the array class is not in the spirit of Python 2.2+ classes/types unification:

I agree.

...

* The class name is not "trivial": numarraycore.NumArray * The class constructor is not built to be used by the commons.

I'm not sure what you have in mind here by "trivial" and "commons".

commons == End users whose most scripts life-time is few days. trivial == A name one would expect, like "Array" or similar.

...

Since arrays are normally generated by functions (zeros, array, fromfunction etc.) and not by the constructor, subclassing numarraycore.NumArray is not very useful. If, for instance, "array"

...

"Array") would be the class name, where the constructor would

(or optionally

...

have the same parameters as the array function (with the option to act as a copy constructor as the array function does), then it would be easy to subclass it:

class MyArray(array): ...

new_array = MyArray(zeros((10,5), type=Int64))

This is desirable, with the present design, one has to go through a two step process:

new_array = MyArray(type=Int64, shape= (10, 5)) load_some_data_into_array(new_array, zeros(10, 5))

Colin W.

As I recall, one of the targets of the numarray project is to be included as a standard python library --- shouldn't it eventually comply with the new-classes standard?

...

Any comments?

Nadav.

------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion