[Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base
Charles R Harris
Mon Oct 1 09:56:48 CDT 2012
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Nathaniel Smith <email@example.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > How can we discourage people from doing this in the future? Can we
> > make .base write-only from the Python level (with suitable deprecation
> > period)? Rename it to ._base (likewise) so that it's still possible to
> > peek under the covers but we remind people that it's really an
> > implementation detail with poorly defined semantics that might change?
> Could we use the simpler .base behavior (fully collapsing the .base
> chain), but be more aggressive about propagating information like
> address/filename/offset for np.arrays that are created by slicing,
> asarray(), etc.?
> (Sorry if I'm missing some context that makes this suggestion idiotic.
> I'm still trying to catch back up on the list and may have missed
> relevant discussion on other threads.)
It might be productive to step back a bit and ask if this is a memmap
problem or a workflow problem. My impression is that pickling memmaps is a
solution to a higher level problem in Scikits.learn workflow and I'd like
more details on what that problem is.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion