Hi,
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat,
As one lurker to another, thanks for calling it out.
Over-argumentative, and personality centric threads like these have
actually led me to distance myself from the numpy community. I do not know
how common it is now because I do not follow it closely anymore. It used to
be quite common at one poi
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, wrote:
> >> >
> >> > It's not *any* cost, this g
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Paul Ivanov wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
> Ralf Gommers, on 2013-04-06 10:51, wrote:
> > P.P.S. expect an identical response from me to future proposals that
> > include backwards compatibility breaks of heavily used functions for
> > something that's not a functional enha
Hi Ralf,
Ralf Gommers, on 2013-04-06 10:51, wrote:
> P.P.S. expect an identical response from me to future proposals that
> include backwards compatibility breaks of heavily used functions for
> something that's not a functional enhancement or bug fix. Such proposals
> are just not OK.
but it is
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, wrote:
>> >
>> > It's not *any* cost, this goes deep and wide, it's one of the basic
>> > concepts of numpy that you want to re
as a lurker, may I say that this discussion seems to have become
non-productive?
It seems all agree that docs needs improvement, perhaps a first step would
be to suggest doc improvements, and then the need for renaming may become
self-evident, or not.
aww darn, ruined my lurker status.
Matti Picu
On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, wrote:
> >
> > It's not *any* cost, this goes deep and wide, it's one of the basic
> > concepts of numpy that you want to rename.
>
> The proposal I last made was to change the default name to 'layout'
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 8:31 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Ap
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM, wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers
wrote:
>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM, wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthe
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Apr
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri
Hi,
On Friday, April 5, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Brett (mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > How about:
> >
> > Step 1: 'order' remains as named keyword, layout added as alias,
> > comment on the lines of "layout will become the
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>>
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Sebastian Berg
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hey
> >> >
> >>
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Sebastian Berg
>> wrote:
>> > Hey
>> >
>> > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Tue
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
> > Hey
> >
> > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> > Maybe we should go
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> Hey
>
> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe we should go through and rename "order" to something more descriptive
>> > in each case,
Hey
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should go through and rename "order" to something more descriptive
> > in each case, so we'd have
> > a.reshape(..., index_order="C")
> > a.copy(memory
Catching up with numpy 1.6
> 'No' means: I don't think it makes sense given the current behavior of numpy
> with respect to functions that are designed to return views
> (and copy memory only if there is no way to make a view)
>
> One objective of functions that create views is *not* to change th
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>>> Before you answer that -- does anyone see a use case for the 'A' and
>>> 'K' flags that can't be reasonably easily accomplished with .view() or
>>> asarray() or ???
>>
>> What order d
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:26 AM, wrote:
>> Before you answer that -- does anyone see a use case for the 'A' and
>> 'K' flags that can't be reasonably easily accomplished with .view() or
>> asarray() or ???
>
> What order does a[a>2] use to create the returned 1-D array?
...
> However, I never
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Maybe we should go through and rename "order" to something more descriptive
> in each case, so we'd have
> a.reshape(..., index_order="C")
> a.copy(memory_order="F")
> etc.?
I'd like to propose this instead:
a.reshape(..., order=
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 12:40 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>
>>
>> So - to restate in other words - this :
>>
>> np.reshape(a, (3, 4), order='F')
>>
>> could reasonably mean one of two orthogonal things
>>
>> 1) Retrieve data fro
On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 12:40 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> So - to restate in other words - this :
>
> np.reshape(a, (3, 4), order='F')
>
> could reasonably mean one of two orthogonal things
>
> 1) Retrieve data from the array using first-to-last indexing, return
> any memory layout
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 1:33 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:54 PM, wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:54 PM, wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Chris
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:54 PM, wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
>>> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
> We all agree that 'order
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
We all agree that 'order' is used with two different and orthogonal
meanings in numpy.
>
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> We all agree that 'order' is used with two different and orthogonal
>>> meanings in numpy.
>
> well, not entirely orthogonal -- they are the some concept, used in
> d
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> We all agree that 'order' is used with two different and orthogonal
>>> meanings in numpy.
Brief thank you for your helpful and thoughtful discussion.
> well, not e
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> We all agree that 'order' is used with two different and orthogonal
>>> meanings in numpy.
>
> well, not entirely orthogonal -- they are the some concept, used in
> diffe
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> We all agree that 'order' is used with two different and orthogonal
>> meanings in numpy.
well, not entirely orthogonal -- they are the some concept, used in
different contexts, so there is some benefit to their having
similarity. So I"d adv
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Sebastian Berg
>>> wrote:
> the context where it get
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Sebastian Berg
>> wrote:
the context where it gets applied. So giving the same strategy two
different names is si
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal <
chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> > It was not enough for me or the three others who will publicly admit
> > to the shame of finding it confusing without further thought.
>
> I w
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> It was not enough for me or the three others who will publicly admit
> to the shame of finding it confusing without further thought.
I would submit that some of the confusion came from the fact that with
ravel(), and the 'A' and 'K' flags, y
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
>>> the context where it gets applied. So giving the same strategy two
>>> different names is silly; if anything it's the contexts that should
>>> have different names
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 5:19 AM, wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM, wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
>> This is li
On Wed, 2013-04-03 at 08:52 -0700, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
> >> the context where it gets applied. So giving the same strategy two
> >> different names is silly; if anything it's the contexts that should
> >> have different names
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
>> the context where it gets applied. So giving the same strategy two
>> different names is silly; if anything it's the contexts that should
>> have different names.
>>
>
> Yup, thats how I think about it too...
me too...
> But I would really
On Tue, 2013-04-02 at 22:52 +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >> This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguous
> >> about whether I want you to drive or walk, and concluding that we need
> >> new words for the direction
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM, wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
> This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguo
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguous
about whether I want you to drive or walk, and concludi
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>> This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguous
>>> about whether I want you to drive or walk, and concluding that we need
>>> new words for the direction
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguous
about whether I want you to drive or walk, and concluding th
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>> This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguous
>>> about whether I want you to drive or walk, and concluding that we need
>>> new words for the directions dep
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> This is like observing that if I say "go North" then it's ambiguous
>> about whether I want you to drive or walk, and concluding that we need
>> new words for the directions depending on what sort of vehicle you
>> use. So "go North" means d
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:07 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
>> I still don't see why order is not a general concept, whether it
>> refers to memory or indexing/iterating.
>
> I agree -- the ordering concept is the same, it's _what_ is being
>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> Maybe we should go through and rename "order" to something more descriptive
>>> in each case, so we'd have
>>> a.resh
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
> I still don't see why order is not a general concept, whether it
> refers to memory or indexing/iterating.
I agree -- the ordering concept is the same, it's _what_ is being
ordered that's different. So I say we stick with 'C' and 'F' -- numpy
users will
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Maybe we should go through and rename "order" to something more descriptive
>> in each case, so we'd have
>> a.reshape(..., index_order="C")
>> a.copy(memory_order="F")
>> etc.?
>
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Thank you for the compliment, it's more enjoyable than other potential
>>> explanations of my conf
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Thank you for the compliment, it's more enjoyable than other potential
>> explanations of my confusion (sigh).
>>
>> But, I don't think that is the explanation.
>
Hi,
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 7:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
>> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>>
>> Summary
>> --
>>
>> There are two separate idea
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:15 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Thank you for the compliment, it's more enjoyable than other potential
> explanations of my confusion (sigh).
>
> But, I don't think that is the explanation.
well, the core explanation is these are difficult and intertwined
concepts...And ye
>>
>> 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
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:08 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>
> Summary
> --
>
> There are two separate ideas needed to understand ordering in ravel and
reshape:
>
> Idea 1): ravel /
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:
>
>
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal
wrote:
> HI folks,
>
> I've been teaching Python lately, have taught numpy a couple times
> (formally), and am preparing a leacture about it over the next couple
> weeks -- so I'm taking an interest here.
>
> I've been a regular nump
HI folks,
I've been teaching Python lately, have taught numpy a couple times
(formally), and am preparing a leacture about it over the next couple
weeks -- so I'm taking an interest here.
I've been a regular numpy user for a long time, though as it happens,
rarely use ravel() (sode note, what's a
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 1:34 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Berg
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 14:04 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 14:04 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
>>> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> >
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 14:04 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM, w
On Sun, 2013-03-31 at 14:04 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Matthew Brett
> >>> wr
Hi,
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 1:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
> On S
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:43 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Matthew Brett <
> matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:3
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 3:54 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
>>>
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 10:38 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
> On
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:37 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
> On Sa
On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 12:04 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
wrote:
>
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 9:05 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
> On Sa
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
wrote:
>
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:02 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, wrote:
> On S
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:50 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, wrote:
>>> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 a
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, Mar
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Bradley M. Froehle
wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
>> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> On Sat
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Mat
On Sat, 2013-03-30 at 12:45 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 19:08 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
> >> about ravel and shape i
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:20 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:57 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
We were teaching today, and found ourselves gett
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:57 PM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> wrote:
Hi,
We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting v
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
>>> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>>>
>>>
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 4:14 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
>> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>>
>> Summary
>> --
>>
>> There are two separate ideas needed
Hi,
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 19:08 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
>> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>>
>> Summary
>> --
>>
>> There are two separate idea
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 19:08 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>
> Summary
> --
>
> There are two separate ideas needed to understand ordering in ravel and
> reshape:
>
> Idea 1):
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 7:14 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
>> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>>
>> Summary
>> --
>>
>> There are two separate ideas needed to un
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
> about ravel and shape in numpy.
>
> Summary
> --
>
> There are two separate ideas needed to understand ordering in ravel and
> reshape:
>
> Idea 1): r
Hi,
We were teaching today, and found ourselves getting very confused
about ravel and shape in numpy.
Summary
--
There are two separate ideas needed to understand ordering in ravel and reshape:
Idea 1): ravel / reshape can proceed from the last axis to the first,
or the first to the
97 matches
Mail list logo
