[Numpy-discussion] The array interface published

[Michiel Jan Laurens de Hoon]

Travis Oliphant wrote:
>> Some comments on the array interface:
>>
>> 1) The "__array_shape__" method is identical to the existing "shape" 
>> method in Numerical Python and numarray (except that "shape" does a 
>> little bit better checking, but it can be added easily to 
>> "__array_shape__"). To avoid code duplication, it might be better to 
>> keep that method. (and rename the other methods for consistency, if 
>> desired).
> 
> 
> 
> There is no code duplication.  In these cases it is just another name 
> for .shape.    What "better checking" are you referring to?


The method __array_shape__ is

     if (strcmp(name, "__array_shape__") == 0) {
         PyObject *res;
         int i;
         res = PyTuple_New(self->nd);
         for (i=0; i<self->nd; i++) {
             PyTuple_SET_ITEM(res, i, PyInt_FromLong((long)self->dimensions[i]));
         }
         return res;
     }

while the method shape is

     if (strcmp(name, "shape") == 0) {
         PyObject *s, *o;
         int i;

         if ((s=PyTuple_New(self->nd)) == NULL) return NULL;

         for(i=self->nd; --i >= 0;) {
             if ((o=PyInt_FromLong(self->dimensions[i])) == NULL) return NULL;
             if (PyTuple_SetItem(s,i,o) == -1) return NULL;
         }
         return s;
     }

so it checks if PyInt_FromLong and PyTuple_SetItem are successful. I don't see 
how PyTuple_SetItem can fail, so PyTuple_SET_ITEM should be fine.

--Michiel.

--Michiel.

-- 
Michiel de Hoon, Assistant Professor
University of Tokyo, Institute of Medical Science
Human Genome Center
4-6-1 Shirokane-dai, Minato-ku
Tokyo 108-8639
Japan
http://bonsai.ims.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~mdehoon