Hi, On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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"
I don't know what you mean by trick question - was there something over-complicated in the example? I deliberately didn't include various much more confusing examples in "reshape". > ravel F and C have *nothing* to do with memory layout. We do agree on this of course - but you said in an earlier mail that you thought of 'C" and 'F' as referring to target memory layout (which they don't in this case) so I think we also agree that "C" and "F" do often refer to memory layout elsewhere in numpy. > 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) Usually you don't need to know what reshape or ravel did because you are likely to reshape again and that will use the same algorithm. For example, I didn't know that that ravel worked in reverse index order, started explaining it wrong, and had to check. I use ravel and reshape a lot, and have not run into this problem because either a) I didn't test my code properly or b) I did reshape after ravel / reshape and it reversed what I did first time. So, I don't think it's "we haven't noticed any problems" is a good argument in the face of "several experienced developers got it wrong when trying to guess what it did". > 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. Right - and this would be silly if and only if it made sense to conflate memory layout and index ordering. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
