[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.6 schedule (was: Numpy 2.0 schedule)

Enthought oliphant@enthought....
Sat Mar 5 20:23:16 CST 2011


This should be changed back so that the former works and the later does not.   It was intentional that the former worked --- it was consistent with broadcasting rules.

A (1,20) array can be interpreted as a (20,) array.

Travis 



(mobile phone of)
Travis Oliphant
Enthought, Inc.
www.enthought.com


On Mar 5, 2011, at 6:53 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:58:14 -0600, Benjamin Root wrote:
> > I recently had to fix an example in matplotlib where there was a 1xN
> > array being assigned to a 1-D slice of a numpy array.  It used to work,
> > but it now doesn't.  I don't know if this was intended or not, though.
> 
> Probably not -- please file a bug report. If you can also point to a
> Numpy version in which it worked, that would also be nice.
> 
> 
> I decided to give git bisect a try.  In testing this, I tried two things:
> 
> a = np.empty((20,))
> a[:] = np.random.random((1, 20))
> 
> and
> 
> a[:] = np.random.random((20, 1))
> 
> These both currently fail with the same exception message.  If I check out and build v1.5.0, the former works, but the latter does not.  Going back to v1.4.0, and the latter still doesn't work.  Maybe this really shouldn't be considered a bug, and rather a more consistent behavior?
> 
> By the way, git bisect says that the winner is:
> 
> d90f19abf18d59be959e04d73b3dbd7ae04b1e89 is the first bad commit
> commit d90f19abf18d59be959e04d73b3dbd7ae04b1e89
> Author: Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe@gmail.com>
> Date:   Mon Jan 17 18:26:12 2011 -0800
> 
>     ENH: core: Change PyArray_MoveInto to use the new iterator as well
> 
> :040000 040000 a23fbcff385fca9704a5313e81217a6d80e3512c 09b684bd8893e44405534fedad165ce85e751019 M    numpy
> 
> If we agree that this is still a bug and not a feature, I will file a report.
> 
> 
> I think it is more of a feature. The assignment should probably only work if the rhs can be broadcast to the lhs. Whatever is decided, we need to make a test to enforce it.
> 
> +1 for feature. I like stricter checking in most cases.
> 
> 
> Although I think this accounts for some of the failures in tables.
> 
> Chuck 
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110305/20915ac4/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list