Hi all, Since we're mentionning obvious and non-obvious naming,
> > I think you agree that there is potential for confusion, and there > doesn't seem any reason to continue with that confusion if we can come > up with a clearer name. > > So here is a compromise proposal. > > How about: > > * Preferring the names 'c-style' and 'f-style' for the indexing order > case (ravel, reshape, flatiter) This naming scheme is obvious for the ones that have been doing some coding for a long time, but they tend not to speak to anyone else. Why not use naming that are a little bit more explicit (and of course, keep the legacy naming available), and use 'row-first' and 'column-first' (or anything else that may be more explicit) ? Cheers, Éric. > * Leaving 'C" and 'F' as functional shortcuts, so there is no possible > backwards-compatibility problem. > > Would you object to that? > > Cheers, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion Un clavier azerty en vaut deux ---------------------------------------------------------- Éric Depagne e...@depagne.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion