It sounds like there are no objections and this has a strong chance to fix the problems. We will put it on the TODO list for 1.7.0 release.
-Travis On Sep 30, 2012, at 9:30 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > Hey all, > > In a github-discussion with Gael and Nathaniel, we came up with a proposal > for .base that we should put before this list. Traditionally, .base has > always pointed to None for arrays that owned their own memory and to the > "most immediate" array object parent for arrays that did not own their own > memory. There was a long-standing issue related to running out of stack > space that this behavior created. > > Recently this behavior was altered so that .base always points to "the > original" object holding the memory (something exposing the buffer > interface). This created some problems for users who relied on the fact > that most of the time .base pointed to an instance of an array object. > > The proposal here is to change the behavior of .base for arrays that don't > own their own memory so that the .base attribute of an array points to "the > most original object" that is still an instance of the type of the array. > This would go into the 1.7.0 release so as to correct the issues reported. > > What are reactions to this proposal? > > > It sounds like this would solve the problem in the short term, but it is a > bit of a hack in that the behaviour is more complicated than either the > original or the current version. So I could see this in 1.7, but it might be > preferable in the long term to work out what attributes are needed to solve > Gael's problem more directly. > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
