From: Travis O. <oli...@ie...> - 2002-03-06 04:43:50
|
I have not heard any feedback back on my proposal to add a final object to the extended slice syntax to current Numeric to allow for unambiguous index and mask-array access. As a modification to the proposal, suppose we just check to see if the last argument (of at least two) is a 0d array of type signed byte (currently this is illegal and will raise an error). This number would be a flag indicating how to interpret the previous objects. Of course these numbers would be hidden from the user who would write: a[index_array, _I] = <values> b = a[index_array, _I] or a[mask_array, _M] = <values> b = a[mask_array, _M] where _M is a 0d signed byte array indicating that the mask_array should be interpreted as a mask while _I is a 0d signed byte array indicating that the index_array should be interpreted as a integers into the flattened version of a. Other indexing schemes could be envisioned as well a[a1,a2,a3,_X] could be the cross product of the integer arrays a1, a2, and a3 for example. or a[a1, a2, a3, _Z] could select elements from a by "zipping" the sequences a1, a2, and a3 together to form a list of tuples to grab from a. Comments? |