Apparently so. Not to be snide, but I found this thread very "entertaining," as, precisely because there is no single, well-defined (partial) ordering of C, I regard it as poor coding practice to rely on whatever partial ordering the language you're using may (IMO unwisely) provide: if you want max(abs(complex_array)), then you should write that so that future people reading your code have no doubt that that's what you intended; likewise, even if numpy provides it as a default, IMO, if you want max(real(complex_array)), then you should write that, and if you want max(imag(complex_array[where(complex_array == max(real(complex_array))])) (sorry if my numpy is bad) then you should write that (yes, I know it's not very readable, but it accurately portrays your intent and to me, that's paramount.) JMO,
DG Stuart Brorson wrote: >> No. It is a matter of sorting first on the real part, and then resolving >> duplicates by sorting on the imaginary part. The magnitude is not used: >> > [snip] > > Oh, OK. So the ordering algorithm for complex numbers is: > > 1. First sort on real part. > 2. Then sort on imag part. > > Right? > > Stuart > _______________________________________________ > Numpy-discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > -- ERD/ORR/NOS/NOAA <http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/emergencyresponse/> _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
