On Fri, 21 Sep 2007, David Goldsmith wrote: > 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, [snip]
Yea, I kind of thought that too. However, the problem with that is: max(real(complex_array)) returns only the *real* part of the max value found. Numpy returns the *complex* value with the largest *real* part. So the return is conceptually muddled. More specifically, Numpy doesn't return max(real(complex_array)). Rather, it does something like (in pseudocode) idx1 = index( max_all(real(complex_array)) ) idx2 = index( max(imag(complex_array[idx1])) ) return complex_array[idx2] Stuart _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
