On 4 Jan 2013 00:39, "Peter Cock" <p.j.a.c...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I agree with Dag rather than Andrew, "Explicit is better than implicit". > i.e. What Nathaniel described earlier as the apparent consensus. > > Since I've actually used NumPy arrays with specific low memory > types, I thought I should comment about my use case if case it > is helpful: > > I've only used the low precision types like np.uint8 (unsigned) where > I needed to limit my memory usage. In this case, the topology of a > graph allowing multiple edges held as an integer adjacency matrix, A. > I would calculate things like A^n for paths of length n, and also make > changes to A directly (e.g. adding edges). So an overflow was always > possible, and neither the old behaviour (type preserving but wrapping > on overflow giving data corruption) nor the current behaviour (type > promotion overriding my deliberate memory management) are nice. > My preferences here would be for an exception, so I knew right away.
I don't think the changes we're talking about here will help your use case actually; this is only about the specific case where one of your operands, itself, cannot be cleanly cast to the types being used for the operation - it won't detect overflow in general. For that you want #593: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/593 On another note, while you're here, perhaps I can tempt you into having a go at fixing #593? :-) -n
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
