[Numpy-discussion] bug with assignment into an indexed array?

Benjamin Root ben.root@ou....
Wed Aug 17 13:54:06 CDT 2011


On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Olivier Delalleau <shish@keba.be>wrote:
>>
>>> 2011/8/11 Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Olivier Delalleau <shish@keba.be>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Maybe confusing, but working as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you write:
>>>>>   matched_to[np.array([0, 1, 2])] = 3
>>>>> it calls __setitem__ on matched_to, with arguments (np.array([0, 1,
>>>>> 2]), 3). So numpy understand you want to write 3 at these indices.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you write:
>>>>> matched_to[:3][match] = 3
>>>>> it first calls __getitem__ with the slice as argument, which returns a
>>>>> view of your array, then it calls __setitem__ on this view, and it fills
>>>>> your matched_to array at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But when you write:
>>>>>   matched_to[np.array([0, 1, 2])][match] = 3
>>>>> it first calls __getitem__ with the array as argument, which retunrs a
>>>>> *copy* of your array, so that calling __setitem__ on this copy has no effect
>>>>> on your original array.
>>>>>
>>>>> -=- Olivier
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Right, but I guess my question is does it *have* to be that way?  I
>>>> guess it makes some sense with respect to indexing with a numpy array like I
>>>> did with the last example, because an element could be referred to multiple
>>>> times (which explains the common surprise with '+='), but with boolean
>>>> indexing, we are guaranteed that each element of the view will appear at
>>>> most once.  Therefore, shouldn't boolean indexing always return a view, not
>>>> a copy?  Is the general case of arbitrary array selection inherently
>>>> impossible to encode in a view versus a slice with a regular spacing?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, due to the fact the array interface only supports regular spacing
>>> (otherwise it is more difficult to get efficient access to arbitrary array
>>> positions).
>>>
>>> -=- Olivier
>>>
>>>
>> This still bothers me, though.  I imagine that it is next to impossible to
>> detect this situation from numpy's perspective, so it can't even emit a
>> warning or error. Furthermore, for someone who makes a general function to
>> modify the contents of some externally provided array, there is a
>> possibility that the provided array is actually a copy not a view.
>> Although, I guess it is the responsibility of the user to know the
>> difference.
>>
>> I guess that is the key problem.  The key advantage we are taught about
>> numpy arrays is the use of views for efficient access.  It would seem that
>> most access operations would use it, but in reality, only sliced access do.
>> Everything else is a copy (unless you are doing fancy indexing with
>> assignment).  Maybe with some of the forthcoming changes that have been done
>> with respect to nditer and ufuncs (in particular, I am thinking of the
>> "where" kwarg), maybe we could consider an enhancement allowing fancy
>> indexing (or at least boolean indexing) to produce a view?  Even if it is
>> less efficient than a view from slicing, it would bring better consistency
>> in behavior between the different forms of indexing.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents,
>> Ben Root
>>
>
> I think it would be nice to evolve the NumPy indexing and array
> representation towards the goal of indexing returning a view in all cases
> with no exceptions. This would provide a much nicer mental model to program
> with. Accomplishing such a transition will take a fair bit of time, though.
>
> -Mark
>
>

Mark,

It is good to know that there is a chance to make this possible,
eventually.  However, I just thought of a possible barrier that might have
to be overcome before achieving this.  Because it has always been very clear
that non-slicing produces copies, I can easily imagine situations where
developers have come to depend on this copying behavior.  While I think most
copies are unintended (but unnoticed because it was read-only), it is quite
possible that there are situations where this copy behavior is entirely
intended.  Therefore, changing this behavior may break code in subtle ways.

I am not saying that it shouldn't be done (clarity and simplicity should be
paramount), but one should tread carefully here.

My 2 cents,
Ben Root
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110817/c0ec02b9/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list