Hello,
On 30/05/11 04:58 AM, René Dudfield wrote:
On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Lenard Lindstrom <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi,
The last few days I've been adding an array struct interface to
PixelArray. This lets a PixelArray object be converted to another
type that recognizes the interface, (e.g. a NumPy array, though
why one would do that is beyond me). However, in doing so I
uncovered a bug slicing (A unit test exposing the bug was
committed as rev. 3109). The bug was fixed in rev. 3126.
[snip]
So I see two options. First, I can revert PixelArray back to
before I reworked it, since some of the modifications are not
backward compatible. Then I would add my reworked version as a new
array type. Second, I can go ahead and make the changes I see as
necessary, even when they break backward compatibility.
Specifically for behavior <3>, I would remove it. Instead I would
provide a transpose method that flips the PixelArray rows and
columns. No special treatment would be made for (w, 1) and (1, h)
arrays since special treatment could hide mismatched surface bugs.
[snip]
Hi,
I'm easy with anything you choose. Especially since that module is
marked as experimental and has very few users. I'm not sure if adding
an extra array type would be a good idea?
cu.
Then I will keep the changes I've already made. None of them break the
pixelarray.py example. I will keep any further changes to a minimum.
Lenard
