BUG: recarrays viewed as subarrays don't convert to np.record type #6500
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
Record array views were updated in numpy#5943 to return np.record dtype where possible, but forgot about the case of sub-arrays. That's fixed here, so accessing subarray fields by attribute or index works sensibly, as well as viewing a record array as a subarray dtype, and printing subarrays. This also happens to fix numpy#6459, since it affects the same lines. Fixes numpy#6497 numpy#6459
|
This bug was brought up on the mailing list in the post numpy 1.10.1 reduce operation on recarrays. |
charris
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 18, 2015
BUG: recarrays viewed as subarrays don't convert to np.record type
|
Let's give it a shot. Thanks Allan. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Record array views were updated in #5943 to return np.record dtype
where possible, but forgot about the case of sub-arrays.
That's fixed here, so accessing subarray fields by attribute or index
works sensibly, as well as viewing a record array as a subarray dtype,
and printing subarrays.
This also happens to fix #6459, since it affects the same lines.
Fixes #6497 #6459