[Numpy-discussion] Re: Vote: complex64 vs complex128
faltet at carabos.com
Tue Apr 4 08:49:11 CDT 2006
A Dimarts 04 Abril 2006 07:40, Robert Kern va escriure:
> Sebastian Haase wrote:
> > I think I would vote
> > +1 for complex32 & complex64 mostly just because of "that's what I'm
> > used to"
> > But I'm curious to hear what others "know to be in use" - e.g. Matlab or
> > IDL !
> On the merits of the issue, I like the new scheme better. For whatever
> reason, I tend to remember it when coding. With Numeric, I would frequently
> second-guess myself and go to the prompt and tab-complete to look at all of
> the options and reason out the one I wanted.
I agree with Robert. From the very beginning NumPy design has been
very consequent with typeEXTENT_IN_BITS mapping (even for unicode),
and if we go back to numarray (complex32/complex64) convention, this
would be the only exception to this rule. Perhaps I'm a bit biased by
being a developer more interested in type 'sizes' that in 'precision'
issues, but I'd definitely prefer a completely consistent approach for
So +1 for complex64 & complex128
>0,0< Francesc Altet http://www.carabos.com/
V V Cárabos Coop. V. Enjoy Data
More information about the Numpy-discussion