On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 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 think you are overcomplicating things or phrased it as a "trick question" ravel F and C have *nothing* to do with memory layout. I think it's not confusing for beginners that have no idea and never think about memory layout. I've never seen any problems with it in statsmodels and I have seen many developers (GSOC) that are pretty new to python and numpy. (I didn't check the repo history to verify, so IIRC) Even if N, Z were clearer in this case (which I don't think it is and which I have no idea what it should stand for), you would have to go for every use of ``order`` in numpy to check whether it should be N or F or Z or C, and then users would have to check which order name convention is used in a specific function. Josef > > > I got all four correct. 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. > > I don't understand the 'Z' / 'N' suggestion at all. Are they part of some > pneumonic? > > 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. > > Cheers, > Brad > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
