[Numpy-discussion] Vote: complex64 vs complex128
Colin J. Williams
cjw at sympatico.ca
Tue Apr 4 06:20:44 CDT 2006
Sebastian Haase wrote:
> Could we start another poll on this !?
> I think I would vote
> +1 for complex32 & complex64 mostly just because of "that's what I'm
> used to"
+1 Most people look to the number to give a clue as to the precision of
> But I'm curious to hear what others "know to be in use" - e.g. Matlab
> or IDL !
> - Thanks
> Sebastian Haase
> Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> Sebastian Haase wrote:
>>> Tim Hochberg wrote:
>>>> This would work fine if repr were instead:
>>>> dtype([('x', float64), ('z', complex128)])
>>>> Anyway, this all seems reasonable to me at first glance. That said,
>>>> I don't plan to work on this, I've got other fish to fry at the
>>> A new point: Please remind me (and probably others): when did it get
>>> decided to introduce 'complex128' to mean numarray's complex64
>>> and the 'complex64' to mean numarray's complex32 ?
>> It was last February (i.e. 2005) when I first started posting
>> regarding the new NumPy. I claimed it was more consistent to use
>> actual bit-widths. A few people, including Perry, indicated they
>> weren't opposed to the change and so I went ahead with it.
>> You can read relevant posts by searching on
>> numpy-discussion at lists.sourceforge.net
>> Discussions are always welcome. I suppose it's not too late to
>> change something like this --- but it's getting there...
> This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting
> that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live
> and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
> Numpy-discussion at lists.sourceforge.net
More information about the Numpy-discussion