Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-02 Thread Dag Sverre Seljebotn
On 10/01/2012 04:56 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones > wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: > > [...] > > How can we discourage people from doing th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Travis Oliphant
On Oct 1, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Jim Bosch wrote: > On 09/30/2012 03:59 PM, Travis Oliphant 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> [...] >> How can we discourage people from doing this in the future? Can we >> make .base write-only from the Python level (with suitable deprecation >> period)? Rename it to ._ba

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Thouis (Ray) Jones wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > [...] > > How can we discourage people from doing this in the future? Can we > > make .base write-only from the Python level (with suitable deprecation > > period)? Rename it to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Thouis (Ray) Jones
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [...] > How can we discourage people from doing this in the future? Can we > make .base write-only from the Python level (with suitable deprecation > period)? Rename it to ._base (likewise) so that it's still possible to > peek under the cov

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Charles R Harris
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 6:20 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Travis Oliphant > 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Jim Bosch
On 09/30/2012 03:59 PM, Travis Oliphant 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-10-01 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Travis Oliphant 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 th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Travis Oliphant
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 wrote: > Hey all, > > In a gi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Charles R Harris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Travis Oliphant 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 al

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Charles R Harris
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Travis Oliphant 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Travis Oliphant
-- Travis Oliphant (on a mobile) 512-826-7480 On Sep 30, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Han Genuit wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. The proposal is to traverse >> the views as far as you can but stop just short of havin

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Gael Varoquaux
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:30:52PM +0200, Han Genuit wrote: > Also, considering that this behaviour already exists in past versions > of NumPy, namely 1.6, I just checked: in numpy 1.6.1, the behaviour is to create an endless chain of base.base.base... In some sens, what Travis is proposing is go

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Han Genuit
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. The proposal is to traverse > the views as far as you can but stop just short of having base point to an > object of a different type. > > This fixes the infinite chain of views problem bu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Travis Oliphant
I think you are misunderstanding the proposal. The proposal is to traverse the views as far as you can but stop just short of having base point to an object of a different type. This fixes the infinite chain of views problem but also fixes the problem sklearn was having with base pointing to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Han Genuit
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > We are not talking about changing it "back". The change in 1.6 caused > problems that need to be addressed. > > Can you clarify your concerns? The proposal is not a major change to the > behavior on master, but it does fix a real issue

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Travis Oliphant
We are not talking about changing it "back". The change in 1.6 caused problems that need to be addressed. Can you clarify your concerns? The proposal is not a major change to the behavior on master, but it does fix a real issue. -- Travis Oliphant (on a mobile) 512-826-7480 On Sep 30, 2012,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Han Genuit
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Travis Oliphant 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 th

[Numpy-discussion] Behavior of .base

2012-09-30 Thread Travis Oliphant
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 o