MAINT: cancel multifield copy->view and copy-by-position plans (alternate proposal) #11530
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Unused variable warning is causing problems. |
|
@ahaldane Is this still relevant? |
|
This is set to be auto-closed if #12447 is merged (see github note about this a few lines up). |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is a branch where I essentially reverted the major changes of #6053, since it causes some back-compat problems. Putting it here so we can compare, before deciding which way to go. See discussion in #11526. This revers the "multifield indexing returns a view" change, and the "multifield assignment occurs by-position instead of by-name" change.
#6053 wouldn't all be a loss though. This PR still keeps all the little fixes from that PR, and I also make multifield assignment consistent: Before #6053 you would get different behavior depending on whether you did array vs scalar assignment. In #6053 I chose to make all of numpy use "copy-by-position" for multifield assignment, in this PR everything is "copy-by-name". That means there is still a back-compat break in this PR for structured scalar assignment, but probably it has much less effect than #6053.
So if we go this route, at least numpy will be more self-consistent, while still being fairly back-compatible.
Also, at least in #6053 I have worked out how I think multifield indexing behavior should work, without all the quirks of current numpy. The day we implement the new standalone structured dtypes I suggest we use the behavior I worked out in #6053, if we decide to remove it here.
A lot of the code change here is just pasting back in things I removed in #6053.