FW: [Numpy-discussion] Bug: extremely misleading array behavior
Konrad Hinsen
hinsen at cnrs-orleans.fr
Wed Jun 12 01:55:03 EDT 2002
"eric jones" <eric at enthought.com> writes:
> others) would be very slow with this approach. Your copy-on-demand
> suggestion might work though. Its implementation would be more complex,
> but I don't think it would require cooperation from the Python core.?
It wouldn't, and I am not sure the implementation would be much more
complex, but then I haven't tried. Having both copy on demand and
views is difficult, both conceptually and implementationwise, but
with copy-on-demand, views become less important.
> Copy-on-demand doesn't really fit with python's 'assignments are
> references" approach to things though does it? Using foo = bar in
> Python and then changing an element of foo will also change bar. So, I
That would be true as well with copy-on-demand arrays, as foo and bar
would be the same object. Semantically, copy-on-demand would be
equivalent to copying when slicing, which is exactly Python's
behaviour for lists.
> So, how about add.reduce() keep axis=0 to match the behavior of Python,
> but sum() and friends defaulted to axis=-1 to match the rest of the
That sounds like the most arbitrary inconsistency - add.reduce and sum
are synonyms for me.
Konrad.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: hinsen at cnrs-orleans.fr
Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.56.24
Rue Charles Sadron | Fax: +33-2.38.63.15.17
45071 Orleans Cedex 2 | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
France | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list