Hi Anthony,

On Mon, 20 May 2019 16:51:54 +0200, Antony Lee wrote:

> In #13112/#13326, I proposed to change the semantics of constructing

> structured dtypes with a shape-(1,) field (with a deprecation period).

> Currently, a construct like `np.empty(1, ("a", int, 1))` is treated as a

> shape-() field, i.e. the same as `np.empty(1, ("a", int))`; the PR proposes

> to (ultimately) change it to mean using a shape-(1,) field, i.e.

> `np.empty(1, ("a", int, 1))`. This is consistent e.g. with `np.empty(1,

> ("a", int, 2))` being equivalent to `np.empty(1, ("a", int, (2,)))` and

> more generally with numpy accepting a scalar integer n to mean shape-(n,)

> in many places (e.g. `np.zeros(3)` and `np.zeros((3,))`).

>

> Thoughts?

Your change doesn't seem to complicate the function, and improves

consistency. So, +1.

I also think this falls into the bin of "corner cases with marginal gain

that we shouldn't spend developer/review time on", but since you already

have the review completed, that point is moot.

Best regards,

Stéfan

_______________________________________________

NumPy-Discussion mailing list

[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion