Alan McIntyre wrote:
Since chararray doesn't currently have any tests, I'm writing some,
and I ran across a couple of things that didn't make sense to me:
1. The code for __mul__ is exactly the same as that for __rmul__; is
there any reason __rmul__ shouldn't just call __mul__?
Just
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan McIntyre wrote:
Since chararray doesn't currently have any tests, I'm writing some,
and I ran across a couple of things that didn't make sense to me:
1. The code for __mul__ is exactly the same as that for
2008/7/8 Alan McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alan McIntyre wrote:
2. The behavior of __mul__ seems odd:
What is odd about this?
It is patterned after
'a' * 3
'a' * 4
'a' * 5
for regular python strings.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 3:30 PM, Anne Archibald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In particular, the returned type is always string of length four,
which is very peculiar - why four? I realize that variable-length
strings are a problem (object arrays, I guess?), as is returning
arrays of varying dtypes
Since chararray doesn't currently have any tests, I'm writing some,
and I ran across a couple of things that didn't make sense to me:
1. The code for __mul__ is exactly the same as that for __rmul__; is
there any reason __rmul__ shouldn't just call __mul__?
1.5. __radd__ seems like it doesn't do
