[Numpy-discussion] ObjectArray

[Colin J. Williams]

Todd Miller wrote:

>On Fri, 2004-06-11 at 10:53, Colin J. Williams wrote:
>  
>
>>Todd,
>>
>>I'm trying out objects.py from the CVS as of June 11, with PROTOTYPE=
>>1
>>
>>Suggestions and comments based on that.
>>
>>1.  change the order in ObjectsArray so the __init__ becomes:
>>                def __init__(self, objects=None, shape=None,
>>rank=None):
>>     The thinking is that, in the absence of others, objects is the
>>argument most likely to be specified.
>>    
>>
>
>I think this can go either way.  For people that care,  there are
>already array() and fromlist().  Subclasses can override the order.  Am
>I missing something?
>
The convenience of being able to call the ObjectArray constructor 
without using keywords. 
For this purpose, I suggest that it's best to order the parameters in 
the most likely frequency of usage. 

I've found that it's not good to have a subclass with a different 
signature.  A generic call to a constructor is as likely to call the 
subclass as the class.

>>2.  add a check in __init__ to ensure that the shape is in fact
>>shape-like.
>>    
>>
>
>Right now it raises a TypeError, and although it's ugly, it does at
>least trap the error and give a clue in the right direction.
>
The error traceback is rather deep and doesn't directly point to the 
source of the problem.

>>3.  real doc strings would be helpful.  Currently, the doc strings are
>>monopolized by the doctest stuff, 
>>     which was  not  the original intent of doc strings.
>>    
>>
>
>True enough.  Maybe for 1.1.
>  
>
This is particularly important for objects which are not elsewhere 
documented, including private functions.

>>4.  I wonder about the need for both rank and shape.  NumArray gets
>>along fine with just shape.
>>    
>>
>
>This is a new feature, and is useful in the context of object arrays
>where a sequence object is an ambiguous thing:  should the sequence be
>seen as containing elements of an object array, or itself an element of
>the object array.  rank lets you specify the rank of the resulting
>object array explicitly.  It is also computed implicitly if not
>specified based on the first object which doesn't match the type of the
>original sequence.  This is new for 1.0.
>
I hadn't spotted that rank gives one the opportunity to specify the 
dimensionality of  objects, but
shape provides another way of doing it.

>>5.  It is assumed that objects (in __init__) is a sequence, but no
>>check to make sure that it is.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, for 1.0 I don't even think it has to be a sequence anymore. 
>It's possible to make a rank-0 object array.
>  
>
Yes, it is, this adds to the generality.

>>6.  _byteorder is specified for NumArray, but not for ObjectArray,
>>this upsets a utility which 
>>     looks at array   characteristics.
>>    
>>
>
>_byteorder is a private attribute which doesn't make sense for
>ObjectArray.  Add exception handling to the utility if it must be used
>with ObjectArrays.
>
I'll do that.

>
>  
>
>>7.  How is an ObjectArray better than a nested list of objects?  It
>>seems to provide speedier access
>>     to object pointers for larger n.  It may offer the opportunity 
>>to present data in a more organized
>>     tabular manner.  Dictionaries are better, in that they provide
>>access by means of an arbitrary key, 
>>     for the cost of hashing.
>>
>>     NumArray appears to offer storage saving, in addition to the
>>above, but not here.
>>
>>     Am I missing something?  
>>    
>>
>
>ObjectArrays can be indexed, manipulated, and printed like numarrays. 
>ObjectArrays also work with object array ufuncs, so for instance, adding
>two ObjectArrays together implicitly applies the add builtin to each
>pair of elements.  These ufuncs even support reductions and
>accumulations.  This *is* a good question,   but I still think
>ObjectArrays are useful in some contexts.
>
The ability to use the ufuncs is potentially good, but presumably 
assumes a homogeneous ObjectArray.
We can't mix strings and dictionaries.

>
>Thanks for the feedback.
>
>Regards,
>Todd
>
>  
>
Many thanks for your response.  ObjectArray provides a flexible addition 
to numarray.

Colin W

>
>  
>