Hi, On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:18 PM, Andrew Collette <andrew.colle...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > >> In this case I think you'd probably agree it would be reasonable to >> raise an error - all other things being equal? > > No, I don't agree. I want there to be some default semantics I can > rely on. Preferably, I want it to do the same thing it would do if > some_offset were an array with element-by-element offsets, which is > the current behavior of numpy 1.6 if you assume a reasonable dtype for > some_offset.
Ah - well - I only meant that raising an error in the example would be no more surprising than raising an error at the python prompt. Do you agree with that? I mean, if the user knew that: >>> np.array([1], dtype=np.int8) + 128 would raise an error, they'd probably expect your offset routine to do the same. >> Can you think of another practical case where it would be reasonably >> clear that it was the wrong thing to do? > > I consider "myarray + constant -> Error" clearly wrong no matter what > the context. I've never seen it in any other analysis language I've > used. But it's also possible that I'm alone in this... I haven't seen > many other people here arguing against the change. I agree it kind of feels funny, but that's why I wanted to ask you for some silly but specific example where the funniness would be more apparent. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
