You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As discussed in #3509, some improvements to the time-handling could be made:
get_times() returns a view to the segment time_vector if it exist. This means that changing the returned array will also change the one stored on the segment. This is different behaviour to if .t_start is used under the hood, as the array will be generated on the fly. I think everyone is agreed that get_times() should return a copy of the time_vector (if it exists).
copy.deepcopy(recording) or I think recording.clone() does not copy the time_vector. This is discussed here. An fix could be:
What about times for clone()? This is not handled at the BaseExtractor level but the BaseRecording could override it or add an clone_extra_stuff() in base class and the BaseRecording could just implement it
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
As discussed in #3509, some improvements to the time-handling could be made:
get_times()
returns a view to the segmenttime_vector
if it exist. This means that changing the returned array will also change the one stored on the segment. This is different behaviour to if.t_start
is used under the hood, as the array will be generated on the fly. I think everyone is agreed thatget_times()
should return a copy of thetime_vector
(if it exists).copy.deepcopy(recording)
or I thinkrecording.clone()
does not copy thetime_vector
. This is discussed here. An fix could be:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: