Hi, On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle <brad.froe...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett >> >> <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett >> >>>> <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Ravel and reshape use the tems 'C' and 'F" in the sense of index >> >>>>> ordering. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> This is very confusing. We think the index ordering and memory >> >>>>> ordering ideas need to be separated, and specifically, we should >> >>>>> avoid >> >>>>> using "C" and "F" to refer to index ordering. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Proposal >> >>>>> ------------- >> >>>>> >> >>>>> * Deprecate the use of "C" and "F" meaning backwards and forwards >> >>>>> index ordering for ravel, reshape >> >>>>> * Prefer "Z" and "N", being graphical representations of unraveling >> >>>>> in >> >>>>> 2 dimensions, axis1 first and axis0 first respectively (excellent >> >>>>> naming idea by Paul Ivanov) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> What do y'all think? >> >>>> >> >>>> I always thought "F" and "C" are easy to understand, I always thought >> >>>> about >> >>>> the content and never about the memory when using it. >> >> >> >> changing the names doesn't make it easier to understand. >> >> I think the confusion is because the new A and K refer to existing >> >> memory >> >> >> >> I disagree, I think it's confusing, but I have evidence, and that is >> that four out of four of us tested ourselves and got it wrong. >> >> Perhaps we are particularly dumb or poorly informed, but I think it's >> rash to assert there is no problem here. > > > I got all four correct.
Then you are smarted and or better informed than we were. I hope you didn't read my explanation before you tested yourself. Of course if you did read my email first I'd expect you and I to get the answer right first time. If you didn't read my email first, and didn't think too hard about it, and still got all the examples right, and you'd get other more confusing examples right that use reshape, then I'd add you as a data point on the other side to the four data points we got yesterday. > I think the concept --- at least for ravel --- is > pretty simple: would you like to read the data off in C ordering or Fortran > ordering. Since the output array is one-dimensional, its ordering is > irrelevant. Right - hence my confidence that Josef's sense of thinking of the 'C' and 'F' being target array output was not a good way to think of it in this case. It is in the case of arr.tostring() though. > I don't understand the 'Z' / 'N' suggestion at all. Are they part of some > pneumonic? Think of the way you'd read off the elements using reverse (last-first) index order for a 2D array, you might imagine something like a Z. > I'd STRONGLY advise against deprecating the 'F' and 'C' options. NumPy > already suffers from too much bikeshedding with names --- I rarely am able > to pull out a script I wrote using NumPy even a few years ago and have it > immediately work. I wish we could drop bike-shedding - it's a completely useless word because one person's bike-shedding is another person's necessary clarification. You think this clarification isn't necessary and you think this discussion is bike-shedding. I'm not suggesting dropping the 'F' and 'C', obviously - can I call that a 'straw man'? I am suggesting changing the name to something much clearer, leaving that name clearly explained in the docs, and leaving 'C' and 'F" as functional synonyms for a very long time. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
