On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 03:22, Stéfan van der Walt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Robert > > > > 2009/2/6 Robert Kern <[email protected]>: > >>> 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. > > > > Are you -1 on the array dictionary, or on using it to do axis mapping? > > I'm -1 on rewriting every axis= argument to accept strings. I'm +1 on > a generic metadata dict that does not implicitly propagate. > > > I would imagine that Gael would be happier even if he had to do > > > > axis = x.meta.axis['Lateral'] > > some_func(x, axis) > > That's fine with me. > > >> I'm of the opinion that it should never guess. We have no idea what > >> semantics are being placed on the dict. Even in the case where all of > >> the inputs have the same dict, the operation may easily invalidate the > >> metadata. For example, a reduction on one of these axis-decorated > >> arrays would make the axis labels incorrect. > > > > That's a good point. So what would be a sane way of propagating > > meta-data? If we don't want to make any assumptions, it becomes the > > user's responsibility to do it manually. > > I don't think there is *any* sane way of numpy propagating the user's > metadata. The user must be the one to do it. > I'm +1 on all of what Robert said. I've considered writing a subclass/wrapping just so I can make metadata available while passing around recarrays. It'd save me a bunch of work. I don't think there's anything wrong with making the user propagate the dictionary. Ryan -- Ryan May Graduate Research Assistant School of Meteorology University of Oklahoma
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
