[Numpy-discussion] bug ? in Records arrays in numarray
Russell E Owen
rowen at u.washington.edu
Wed Jun 30 08:57:06 EDT 2004
At 7:49 PM -0400 2004-06-29, Todd Miller wrote:
>On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 17:52, Sebastian Haase wrote:
>> OK,
>> I'm still trying to get a handle on these record arrays - because
>>I think they
>> are pretty cool, if I could get them to work...
>> Following the code from yesterday (see that posting below) I
>>discovered this:
>> main.ring4ext[0][0] is not the same as main.ring4ext[0,0]
>> is this intended ??
>>
>> >>> main.ring4ext[0][0]
>> (2308, 76, 272, 1088481152.0, 104.18000030517578, 1994.949951171875)
>> >>> main.ring4ext[0,0]
>> (array([2308, 2309]), array([76, 76]), array([272, 269]), array([
>>1.08848115e
>> +09, 1.08848115e+09], type=Float32), array([ 104.18000031, 104.45999908],
>> type=Float32), array([ 1994.94995117, 1994.95996094], type=Float32))
>> >>> main.ring4ext.shape # yesterday I had this different !!! (20,1)
>> (20, 2)
>>
>> Any comments are appreciated,
>
>I talked to JC Hsu, the numarray.records author, and he explained that
>we're probably looking at a limitation of numarray.records: it doesn't
>yet handle multi-dimensional arrays of records. JC indicated he had
>replied to Sebastian, but for the benefit of everyone else, that's the
>deal.
I agree. I have gotten numarray.records to handle multi-dimensional
arrays, but it's a terrible pain to create them, str(arry) fails and
setting elements of records arrays is painful. I hope at some point
they get a major redesign, as they don't actually seem to have been
designed to fit in with numarray. The resulting code was so ugly that
I gave up and used multiple identically shaped arrays instead.
-- Russell
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list