Hello folks,
I recently was trying to write code to modify an array in-place (so
as not to invalidate any references to that array) via the standard
python idiom for lists, e.g.:
a[:] = numpy.flipud(a)
Now, flipud returns a view on 'a', so assigning that to 'a[:]'
provides pretty strange
Zachary Pincus wrote:
Hello folks,
I recently was trying to write code to modify an array in-place (so
as not to invalidate any references to that array)
I'm not sure what this means exactly.
Say one wants to keep two different variables referencing a single in-
memory list, as so:
a =
On 2/1/07, Zachary Pincus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[CHOP]
I think that this is is unquestionably a bug
It's not a bug. It's a design decision. It has certain consequences. Many
good, some bad and some that just take some getting used to.
-- isn't the point of
views that the user shouldn't
Zachary Pincus wrote:
Hello folks,
I recently was trying to write code to modify an array in-place (so
as not to invalidate any references to that array) via the standard
python idiom for lists, e.g.:
a[:] = numpy.flipud(a)
Now, flipud returns a view on 'a', so assigning that to 'a[:]'
A question, then: Does this represent a bug? Or perhaps there is a
better idiom for modifying an array in-place than 'a[:] = ...'? Or is
incumbent on the user to ensure that any time an array is directly
modified, that the modifying array is not a view of the original
array?
Yes, it is
Zachary Pincus wrote:
I recently was trying to write code to modify an array in-place (so
as not to invalidate any references to that array)
I'm not sure what this means exactly.
Say one wants to keep two different variables referencing a single in-
memory list, as so:
a = [1,2,3]
b = a
Christopher Barker wrote:
Zachary Pincus wrote:
Say a function that (despite Tim's pretty
reasonable 'don't do that' warning) will return true when two arrays
have overlapping memory?
I think it would be useful, even if it's not robust. I'd still like to
know if a given two arrays
