On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Lluís <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah well, I don't usually import routines into my namespace, but full > packages to avoid collisions and ease understanding of the source :)
Good practice, though it's still (I think) best to avoid colliding with very common names in case someone uses the direct import approach (which is perfectly valid and idiomatic Python). > In fact, I looked into 'numpy.ma' to try to follow the same scheme. It > does indeed have a 'numpy.ma.array', while 'numpy.ma.masked_array' seems > just to be an alias for 'numpy.ma.MaskedArray'. > > In any case, I think you had one naming suggestion... could you type it > again? Was it 'numpy.datarray.data_array'? Or perhaps something shorter? I lean towards hoping that numpy would expose at the top level the various *array() functions for the different array types: np.array() -> plain np.masked_array() np.data_array() np.record_array() That would make it easier for people to discover them, and would also encourage uniformization (when possible) of interfaces, signatures, etc. In teaching, it would also be easier to have a little chart explaining the various specializations the other types make over the basic one, and I think it would be more newbie-friendly to have this layout. > In any case, I do see your concerns. I'll fix all pending > requests... when I have time. It's crazy right now, so I won't be having > much time for at least two weeks. Thanks, no worries. It's not like we're drowning in free time here :) Cheers, f _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
