Impressions so far on various issues raised regarding numarray interfaces
1) We are mostly persuaded that rank-0 arrays are the way to go. We will pursue the issue of whether it is possible to have Python accept these as indices for sequence objects with python-dev. 2) We are still mulling over the axis order issue. Regardless of which convention we choose, we are almost certainly going to make it consistent (always the same axis as default). A compatibility module will be provided to replicate Numeric defaults. 3) repr. Finally, a consensus! Even unanimity. 4) Complex comparisons. Implement equality, non-equality, predictable sorting. Make >,<,>=,<= illegal. 5) Copy vs view. Open to more input (but no delayed copying or such).
Perry
My preference would be
Copy semantics for a=b View semantics for a=b.view (or some other explicit syntax)
Bernie
Bernard Frankpitt frankpit@erols.com writes:
My preference would be
Copy semantics for a=b View semantics for a=b.view (or some other explicit syntax)
Although I have been arguing for copy semantics for a=b[c:d], what you want is not really possible (a=b creates and always will create an alias in python -- and this is really a good design decision; just compare it to other languages that do different things depending on what you are assigning).
alex
Bernard Frankpitt frankpit@erols.com writes:
My preference would be
Copy semantics for a=b View semantics for a=b.view (or some other explicit syntax)
And Alexander Schmolck Replies:
Although I have been arguing for copy semantics for a=b[c:d], what you want is not really possible (a=b creates and always will create an alias in > python --
Yes, you are right. In my haste I left out the slice notation
Bernie
-
Alexander Schmolck -
Bernard Frankpitt -
Perry Greenfield