[Numpy-discussion] ndarray.fill and ma.array.filled
Sasha
ndarray at mac.com
Wed Mar 22 17:40:06 CST 2006
On 3/22/06, Travis Oliphant <oliphant at ee.byu.edu> wrote:
> Tim makes a good point here. Should the reshape method be fixed to
> always return a copy? The semantics a.shape = (...) could still be used
> to re-shape contiguous arrays where possible.
>
Reshape never copies the data:
>>> x = ones(4)
>>> x.reshape((2,2)).__array_data__ == x.__array_data__
True
The only inconsistency is that
>>> x.reshape((2,2)) is x
False
>>> x.reshape((4,)) is x
True
I agree that this is unnecessary, but don't see much of a problem.
+0 here
> However, whether or not reshape returns a copy is consistent (but
> perhaps not explicitly explained).
>
To me consistency means "is independent of the input." Whether or not
reshape creates a new python object depends on the value of the
argument. I would call it inconsistency.
> We will still have .ravel() which sometimes copies and sometimes doesn't.
Ravel should be a shortcut for x.reshape((x.size,)), so it is really
the same question.
+0 (to make ravel always return a new python object)
More information about the Numpy-discussion
mailing list