On 29/08/2007, Timothy Hochberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The main inconsistency I see above is that resize appears to only require > ownership of the data if in fact the number of items changes. I don't think > that's actually a bug, but I don't like it much; I would prefer that resize > be strict and always require ownership. However, I'm fairly certain that > there are people that prefer "friendliness" over consistency, so I wouldn't > be surprised to get some pushback on changing that.
It seems to me like inplace resize is a problem, no matter how you implement it --- is there any way to verify that no view exists of a given array? (refcounts won't do it since there are other, non-view ways to increase the refcount of an array.) If there's a view of an array, you resize() it in place, and realloc() moves the data, the views now point to bogus memory: you can cause the python interpreter to segfault by addressing their contents. I really can't see any way around this; why not remove inplace resize() (or make it raise exceptions if the size has to change) and allow only the function resize()? Anne _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
