On Sun, March 15, 2009 8:57 pm, Sturla Molden wrote:
Regarding ticket #1054. What is the reason for this strange behaviour?
a = np.zeros((10,10),order='F')
a.flags
C_CONTIGUOUS : False
F_CONTIGUOUS : True
OWNDATA : True
WRITEABLE : True
ALIGNED : True
UPDATEIFCOPY : False
On 3/16/2009 9:27 AM, Pearu Peterson wrote:
If a operation produces new array then the new array should have the
storage properties of the lhs operand.
That would not be enough, as 1+a would behave differently from a+1. The
former would change storage order and the latter would not.
On Mon, March 16, 2009 4:05 pm, Sturla Molden wrote:
On 3/16/2009 9:27 AM, Pearu Peterson wrote:
If a operation produces new array then the new array should have the
storage properties of the lhs operand.
That would not be enough, as 1+a would behave differently from a+1. The
former would
Regarding ticket #1054. What is the reason for this strange behaviour?
a = np.zeros((10,10),order='F')
a.flags
C_CONTIGUOUS : False
F_CONTIGUOUS : True
OWNDATA : True
WRITEABLE : True
ALIGNED : True
UPDATEIFCOPY : False
(a+1).flags
C_CONTIGUOUS : True
F_CONTIGUOUS : False
Sun, 15 Mar 2009 19:57:10 +0100, Sturla Molden wrote:
Regarding ticket #1054. What is the reason for this strange behaviour?
a = np.zeros((10,10),order='F')
a.flags
C_CONTIGUOUS : False
F_CONTIGUOUS : True
OWNDATA : True
WRITEABLE : True
ALIGNED : True
UPDATEIFCOPY : False