On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Hans Meine < me...@informatik.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> Am 29.07.2011 um 20:23 schrieb Nathaniel Smith: > > Even so, surely this behavior should be consistent between base class > > ndarrays and subclasses? If returning 0d arrays is a good idea, then > > we should do it everywhere. If it's a bad idea, then we shouldn't do > > it at all...? > > Very well put. That's exactly the reason why I am insisting on this > discussion, and why I believe that the behavior change is not intentional. > Otherwise, ndarray and matrix should behave like my subclass. (BTW: I did > not check masked_array yet.) > > > (In reality, it sounds like this might be some mishap in the > > __array_wrap__ mechanism?) > > That's exactly my guess. (That could also explain why Mark did not see > anything obvious in the code.) > > Maybe. There isn't a problem for plain old zero dimensional arrays. In [1]: a = array(1) In [2]: a.dtype Out[2]: dtype('int64') In [3]: reshape(a, (1,1), order='f') Out[3]: array([[1]]) This on Linux 64 with latest master. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion