On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 10:29:42PM -0600, Robert Kern wrote:
> >> I have no opinion on the above, as I don't have this use case. However, as
> >> you are talking about implementing something, I jump on the occasion to
> >> suggest another gadget, slightly related: I would like named axis.
> >> Suppose you have a 5D array, I would like to be able to give each axis
> >> names, eg (to chose an example you might be familiar with) ('Frontal',
> >> 'Lateral', 'Axial', 'Time', 'Subjects'). And if this could be understood
> >> be numpy operations (say ufuncs and fancy indexing) so that I could do (a
> >> is my 5D array):> > This could be implemented but would require adding information to the > > NumPy array. > More than that, though. Every function and method that takes an axis > or reduces an axis will need to be rewritten. For that reason, I'm -1 > on the proposal. Yes, this is the reason why this proposition is actually a lot of work. This is also what makes it interesting. Sticking information on a numpy array is useful, but it does not achieve something that is not feasible without the help of numpy. The proposition is about much more than that. Gaël _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
