I got it. Thanks! Now I see why this is non-trivial to fix it.
However, it might be also a source of very-hard-to-find bugs. It might
be worth discussing this non-intuitive example in the documentation.
Cheers,
Bartosz
>> Thanks for answer, Francesc.
>>
>> I understand now that fancy indexing
Hey Bartosz,
On 11/28/12 3:26 PM, Bartosz wrote:
> Thanks for answer, Francesc.
>
> I understand now that fancy indexing returns a copy of a recarray. Is
> it also true for standard ndarrays? If so, I do not understand why
> X['a'][cond]=-1 should work.
Yes, that's a good question. No, in this c
Thanks for answer, Francesc.
I understand now that fancy indexing returns a copy of a recarray. Is
it also true for standard ndarrays? If so, I do not understand why
X['a'][cond]=-1 should work.
Cheers,
Bartosz
On Wed 28 Nov 2012 03:05:37 PM CET, Francesc Alted wrote:
> On 11/28/12 1:47 PM, B
On 11/28/12 1:47 PM, Bartosz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I try to update values in a single field of numpy record array based on
> a condition defined in another array. I found that that the result
> depends on the order in which I apply the boolean indices/field names.
>
> For example:
>
> cond = np.zeros(5,
Hi,
I try to update values in a single field of numpy record array based on
a condition defined in another array. I found that that the result
depends on the order in which I apply the boolean indices/field names.
For example:
cond = np.zeros(5, dtype=np.bool)
cond[2:] = True
X = np.rec.fromar
