Hi, On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 17:17, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: >> Tue, 21 Sep 2010 21:50:08 +0000, Pauli Virtanen wrote: >> >>> Tue, 21 Sep 2010 17:31:55 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: >>>> The following example demonstrates a rather unexpected result: >>>> >>>>>>> import numpy >>>>>>> x = numpy.array( complex( 1.0 , 1.0 ) , numpy.object ) >>>> print x.real >>>> (1+1j) >>>>>>> print x.imag >>>> 0 >>>> >>>> Shouldn't real and imag return an error in such a situation? >>> >>> It probably shouldn't do *that* at the least. >> >> *that* == return a complex number from .real > > What is the alternative? I'm personally happy with saying that many of > the operations we define on numpy arrays can be done because we know > the types and that object arrays subvert this. numpy can't, without > excessive amounts of magic, always know a sensible thing to do with > object arrays, so we implement the fast thing to do.
I agree that special-casing object array .real to detect complex contents seems a bit messy, but it does make sense I think to raise an error from .real and .imag for non-numerical types. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
