just to not prevent it from the black hole - what about integrating fromiter into array? (see the post by Benjamin Root)
for me personally, taking the first element for deducing the dtype would be a perfect default way to read generators. If one wants a specific other dtype, one could specify it like in the current fromiter method. On 15 December 2015 at 08:08, Stephan Sahm <stephan.s...@gmx.de> wrote: > I would like to further push Benjamin Root's suggestion: > > "Therefore, I think it is not out of the realm of reason that passing a > generator object and a dtype could then delegate the work under the hood to > np.fromiter()? I would even go so far as to raise an error if one passes a > generator without specifying dtype to np.array(). The point is to reduce > the number of entry points for creating numpy arrays." > > would this be ok? > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:50 PM Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.v.r...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > Heh, never noticed that. Was it implemented more like a >> generator/iterator in older versions of Python? >> >> No, it predates generators and iterators so it has always had to be >> implemented like that. >> >> -- >> Robert Kern >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
