[Numpy-discussion] uint64 typecasting with scalars broken (?)
Charles R Harris
charlesr.harris@gmail....
Mon Apr 23 22:34:35 CDT 2007
On 4/23/07, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/23/07, Travis Oliphant <oliphant.travis@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> > Christian Marquardt wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The following is what I expected...
> > >
> > > >>> y = 1234
> > > >>> x = array([1], dtype = "uint64")
> > > >>> print x + y, (x + y).dtype.type
> > > [1235] <type 'numpy.uint64'>
> > >
> > >
> >
> > This is "what you expect" only because y is a scalar and cannot
> > determine the "kind" of the output.
> >
> > > but is this the way it should be? (numpy 1.0.2, Linux, Intel comilers)
> > >
> > > >>> print x[0] + y, type(x[0] + y)
> > > 1235.0 <type 'numpy.float64'>
> > >
> >
> > This is correct (sort of) because in a mixed operation between uint64
> > and int32, because there is no int128, the sum must be placed in a
> > float. In reality it should be a long-double float but it was decided
> > not to perpetuate long double floats like this because then on 64-bit
> > platforms they would be showing up everywhere.
>
>
> I wonder if returning int64 wouldn't be better in this case. It has more
> precision than a double and has the advantage of being an integer. True,
> uint64s with the msb set would be wrongly interpreted, but... Or maybe throw
> an error when mixing the two, since really the result can't be relied on. If
> the latter, it would still be nice have an interpretation for python
> integers, so just interpret them as uint64 (I believe a C type cast does
> this) and just add using the usual modular arithmetic. This still allows
> incrementing and decrementing. For instance, using uint2 as an example,
>
> 3 - 1 == 3 + (-1) == 0x11 + 0x11 == 0x10 == 2
>
> I think this makes the most sense, after all, subtraction is defined for
> uints and we already use modular arithmetic. I admit some strange results
> can show up, but no stranger than treating the integers as floats having 51
> bit precision. I suppose we could raise an error on integer overflow, but
> that isn't how we have done things with the other integers.
>
> Of course, all the other mixed integer types with the same number of bits
> could be treated the same way, which would at least be consistent. The user
> would then have to specify a larger type whenever it was needed and
> explicitly deal with the case of uint64. Let's see what C does:
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char** args)
> {
> unsigned long long x = 0;
> long long y = -1;
>
> printf("%Ld\n", x + y);
>
> return 1;
> }
>
> prints -1, as expected, and doesn't issue a compiler warning with -Wall.
>
And using %Lu instead of %Ld prints 18446744073709551615, which is the same
bit pattern interpreted as unsigned.
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://projects.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20070423/36b89b86/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Numpy-discussion
mailing list