[Numpy-discussion] Simplifying array()

[Todd Miller]

On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 10:26 -0500, Colin J. Williams wrote:
> Todd Miller wrote:
> 
> >Someone (way to go Rory!) recently posted a patch (woohoo!) for
> >numarray which I think bears a little discussion since it involves
> >the re-write of a fundamental numarray function: array().
> >The patch fixes a number of bugs and deconvolutes the logic of array().
> >
> >The patch is here if you want to look at it yourself:
> >
> >http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?atid=450449&group_id=1369&func=browse
> >
> >One item I thought needed some discussion was the removal of two
> >features:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>  * array() does too much. E.g., handling file/memory instances for
> >>    'sequence'. There's fromfile for the former, and users needing
> >>    the latter functionality should be clued up enough to
> >>    instantiate NumArray directly.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >I agree with this myself.  Does anyone care if they will no longer be
> >able to construct an array from a file or buffer object using array()
> >rather than fromfile() or NumArray(), respectively?  Is a deprecation
> >process necessary to remove them? 
> >  
> >
> I would suggest deprecation on the way to removal.  For the newcomer, 
> who is not yet "clued up"
> some advice on the instantiation of NumArray would help.

That's fair.  The docstring for NumArray needs beefing up along the same
lines as Rory's work on array().  I initially liked Florian's idea of
frombuffer() but since I can't think of how it's not identical to
NumArray(),  I'm not sure there's any point.

> Rory leaves in type and typecode.  It would be good to eliminate this 
> apparent overlap.  Why not
> deprecate and then drop type?  

Some people like type.  I don't want to touch this.

> It would be good to clarify the acceptable content of a sequence.  A 
> list, perhaps with sublists, of
> numbers is clear enough but what about a sequence of NumArray instances 
> or even a sequence
> of numbers, mixed with NumArray instances?

The patch has a new docstring which spells out the array() construction
algorithm.  Lists of arrays would be seen as "numerical sequences".

> Is the function asarray redundant?

Yes,  but it's clear and also needed for backward compatibility with
Numeric.  Besides, it's not just redundant,  it's an idiom...

> I suggest that the copy parameter be of the BoolType.  This probably has 
> no practical impact but
> it is consistent with current Python usage and makes it clear that this 
> is a Yes/No parameter,
> rather than specifying a number of copies.

Fair enough.  Backward compatibility dictates not *requiring* a bool,
but using it as a default is fine.