I like this, too. And I think the trailing comment, # shape=... is much better, as it gets the best of both worlds: user get the info, and tools which do eval(repr(..)) only need to learn to ignore the comment. For one, numpy's own doctests will keep working with no churn since scipy_doctest handles this already.
Evgeni вт, 1 окт. 2024 г., 01:07 Chris Barker via NumPy-Discussion < numpy-discussion@python.org>: > I like this. > > while ideally, eval(repr(an_object)) == object, in practice this is > already violated fro large arays -- so other than doctests, this shouldn't > cause too many headaches. > > -CHB > > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 10:13 AM Marten van Kerkwijk < > m...@astro.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> When the repr of an array is shown, currently the dtype and shape are >> explicitly listed if these cannot be directly inferred from the list >> that is shown, i.e., if the dtype is not float64 or int64, and if the >> size of the array is zero, but the shape not the simple (0,). >> >> For instance, >> >> ``` >> np.empty((10,2,0), dtype="i2") >> array([], shape=(10, 2, 0), dtype=int16) >> ``` >> >> I propose to also show the shape for the (rare) case that an array is >> summarized, i.e., when it has more than the default threshold of 1000 >> elements, and elements are replaced by `...`. The logic is that also in >> that case it is no longer clear what the shape actually is, which is >> useful information (e.g., if working in a notebook -- which is the >> original use case at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/27461). >> >> I have a PR for that at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/27482 >> which would lead to the following: >> >> ``` >> np.arange(1001) >> array([ 0, 1, 2, ..., 998, 999, 1000], shape=(1001,)) >> ``` >> >> Just to be sure: this PR causes *no* change for any arrays with sizes >> less than a 1000, so I do not believe this change will lead to a lot of >> unnecessary churn for down-stream packages. Indeed, between numpy and >> astropy (which has lots of doctests), the only changes to (doc)tests >> that were needed are the very few for arrays where the "threshold" is >> explicitly exceeded. >> >> One irritant is that the shape is not an argument that can be passed in >> to an `np.array` call. While this is just as much the case for >> zero-sized arrays, perhaps a better solution would be to move the shape >> information out of the parentheses, e.g., using ``...) # shape=(...)``. >> I can change the PR to do that if that's the consensus. >> >> All the best, >> >> Marten >> _______________________________________________ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ >> Member address: chris.bar...@noaa.gov >> > > > -- > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE > <https://www.google.com/maps/search/7600+Sand+Point+Way+NE?entry=gmail&source=g> > (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: evgeny.burovs...@gmail.com >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
