[Numpy-discussion] Release of 1.0b5 this weekend
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Tue Aug 29 15:43:14 CDT 2006
Tim Hochberg wrote:
>-0.5 from me if what we're talking about here is having mutating methods
>return self rather than None. Chaining stuff is pretty, but having
>methods that mutate self and return self looks like a source of elusive
>bugs to me.
I'm generally +0 on this idea (it seems like the clarity in writing
comes largely for interactive users), and don't see much difficulty in
separating the constructs. On the other hand, I don't see much problem
in returning a reference to self either.
I guess you are worried about the situation where you write
b = a.sort()
and think you have a new array, but in fact have a new reference to the
Hmm.. So, how is this different from the fact that
b = a[1:10:3] already returns a reference to 'a'
(I suppose in the fact that it actually returns a new object just one
that happens to share the same data with a).
However, I suppose that other methods don't return a reference to an
already-altered object, do they.
Tim's argument has moved me from +0 to -0
More information about the Numpy-discussion