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.) In fact, my first thought was "maybe there was a documented change in the __array_wrap__ protocol, which we have to implement now", but obviously that is not the case. Have a nice day, Hans _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
