[Numpy-discussion] problem with assigning to recarrays
Mon Mar 2 19:20:53 CST 2009
Many thanks for your willingness to help out with this. Not to
belabor the point, but I notice that the rules you lay out below don't
quite explain why the following syntax works as I originally expected:
r.field1 = 1
I'm guessing this is because r.field1 is already an existing scalar
object, with an address in memory, so it can be changed in place,
whereas this syntax would need to create an entirely new array object
(not even a copy, exactly):
r[where(r.field1 == 0)].field1
No need to respond if this understanding is correct. I just wanted to
write it down in case someone else is searching the archive with this
question in the future.
On Feb 27, 2009, at 10:58 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 19:06, Brian Gerke
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> r[where(r.field1 == 1.)] make a copy. There is no way for us to
>>> construct a view onto the original memory for this circumstance
>>> numpy's memory model.
>> Many thanks for the quick reply. I assume that this is true only for
>> record arrays, not for ordinary arrays? Certainly I can make an
>> assignment in this way with a normal array.
> Well, you are doing two very different things. Let's back up a bit.
> Python gives us two hooks to modify an object in-place with an
> assignment: __setitem__ and __setattr__.
> x[<item>] = y ==> x.__setitem__(<item>, y)
> x.<attr> = y ==> x.__setattr__('<attr>', y)
> Now, we don't need to restrict ourselves to just variables for 'x'; we
> can have any expression that evaluates to an object.
> (<expr>)[<item>] = y ==> (<expr>).__setitem__(<item>, y)
> (<expr>).<attr> = y ==> (<expr>).__setattr__('<attr>', y)
> The key here is that the (<expr>) on the LHS is evaluated just like
> any expression appearing anywhere else in your code. The only special
> in-place behavior is restricted to the *outermost* [<item>] or
> So when you do this:
> r[where(r.field1 == 1.)].field2 = 1.0
> it translates to something like this:
> tmp = r.__getitem__(where(r.field1 == 1.0)) # Makes a copy!
> tmp.__setattr__('field2', 1.0)
> Note that the first line is a __getitem__, not a __setitem__ which can
> modify r in-place.
>> Also, if it is truly impossible to change this behavior, or to have
>> raise an error--then are there any best-practice suggestions for how
>> to remember and avoid running into this non-obvious behavior? If one
>> thinks of record arrays as inheriting from numpy arrays, then this
>> problem is certainly unexpected.
> It's a natural consequence of the preceding rules. This a Python
> thing, not a difference between numpy arrays and record arrays. Just
> keep those rules in mind.
>> Also, I've just found that the following syntax does do what is
>> (r.field2)[where(field1 == 1.)] = 1.
>> It is at least a little aesthetically displeasing that the syntax
>> works one way but not the other. Perhaps my best bet is to stick
>> this syntax and forget that the other exists? A less-than-satisfying
>> solution, but workable.
> If you drop the extraneous bits, it becomes a fair bit more readable:
> r.field2[r.field1 == 1] = 1
> This is idiomatic; you'll see it all over the place where record
> arrays are used. The reason that this form modifies r in-place is
> because r.__getattr__('field2') is able to return a view rather than a
> Robert Kern
> "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
> enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
> though it had an underlying truth."
> -- Umberto Eco
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
More information about the Numpy-discussion