Ticket 1573 - suggested fix #136
Conversation
…fmt specifier, a list of fmt specifiers, and a string of fmt specifiers, for complex numbers in savetxt.
…plex numbers forgotten for fmt being a list or tuple
|
If anyone is wondering as to the 3 commits: I could not immediately agree with myself on exactly how the formatting rules should be... |
| # `fmt` can be a string with multiple insertion points or a | ||
| # list of formats. E.g. '%10.5f\t%10d' or ('%10.5f', '$10d') | ||
| # Determine first if X is complex, where twice as many |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't that be determine if the format is for complex?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If I hit savetxt(a_complex_array) or savetxt(a_real_array), savetxt should do the necessary magic, IMHO. And, how do you know that the format "is for complex"? I am unaware of any complex format specifier (but please, enlighten me if I'm wrong here).
On 13. aug. 2011, at 17.23, charris wrote:
# `fmt` can be a string with multiple insertion points or a # list of formats. E.g. '%10.5f\t%10d' or ('%10.5f', '$10d')
# Determine first if X is complex, where twice as manyShouldn't that be determine if the format is for complex?
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/136/files#r91202
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, the comment came after the check if 'X' was complex so I assumed you were checking for something else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I forgot to remove that line. It's been committed now.
|
This looks good to me but it needs some tests. I really hate the capitol 'X' variable, but that seems to be used everywhere in npyio ;) |
|
The capital 'X' was there from before, but should be easy to replace with a search and replace. Where would I put the tests for this? I'll gladly write them if people feel the interface is the expected one - no need to test code if it will be rewritten before it is released. On 13. aug. 2011, at 17.27, charris wrote:
|
|
Don't worry about the 'X'. If you want to redo things at some point, make it a separate pull request. |
|
If you want more discussion of your choices, you should post to the list, maybe with some examples. |
|
I posted on the mailing list but saw no replies. On 13. aug. 2011, at 19:08, charrisreply@reply.github.com wrote:
|
|
I inclined to push this as no one else has weighed in. However, the documentation needs an update and the new functionality needs a test. |
|
I have been meaning to look at that, I just haven't had the time. On 26. aug. 2011, at 03:28, charrisreply@reply.github.com wrote:
|
Conflicts: numpy/lib/npyio.py Resolved conflicts and ran test suite.
|
I'll open a new pull request. |
feat: Add vsra_n_s8
Suggested fix, as advertised.
Do people like the form of the functionality? As of now, the fmt= kwarg kan be:
a) a single specifier, fmt='%.4e', resulting in numbers formatted like ' (%s+%sj)' % (fmt, fmt)
b) a full string specifying every real and imaginary part, e.g. '%.4e %+.4j' * 3 for 3 columns
c) a list of specifiers, one per column - in this case, the real and imaginary part must have separate specifiers, e.g. ['%.3e + %.3ej', '(%.15e%+.15ej)']
Should a test of this functionality be written?