[Numpy-discussion] view of recarray issue

[Jay Bourque]

Ondrej,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. I have some free time today to
get this resolved if you haven't already fixed it.

-Jay

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Ondřej Čertík <ondrej.certik at gmail.com>wrote:

> Jay,
>
> On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Ondřej Čertík <ondrej.certik at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Jay Bourque <jay.bourque at continuum.io>
> wrote:
> >> I'm actively looking at this issue since it was my pull request that
> broke
> >> this (https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/350). We definitely don't
> want to
> >> break this functionality for 1.7. The problem is that even though
> indexing
> >> with a subset of fields still returns a copy (for now), it now returns a
> >> copy of a view of the original array. When you call copy() on a view, it
> >> copies the entire original structured array with the view dtype. A short
> >> term fix would be to "manually" create a proper copy to return similar
> to
> >> what _index_fields() did before my change, but since the idea is to
> >> eventually return the view instead of a copy, long term we need a way
> to do
> >> a proper copy of a structured array view that doesn't copy the unwanted
> >> fields.
> >
> > This should be fixed for 1.7.0. However, I am going to release beta now,
> > and then see what we can do about this.
>
> What would be the best "short term" fix, so that we can release 1.7.0?
>
> I am still trying to understand what exactly the problem with dtype is
> in _index_fields().
> Would you suggest to keep using the view, or somehow revert to the old
> behavior while
> still trying to pass all the new tests in your PR 350? If you have any
> hints,
> it would save me some time.
>
> Thanks,
> Ondrej
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20120831/5fbc089e/attachment.html>