A Friday 23 November 2007, Pauli Virtanen escrigué:
> > This would have had the side-effect of placing the largest
> > dimensions first and using a C order. It would be a pity, since
> > the disussion may not have been spurred! ;)
>
> I think we would have had a different discussion ;)
>
> >>> imp
Hi Pauli,
A Friday 23 November 2007, Pauli Virtanen escrigué:
[...]
> The order of the dimensions of the array here came partly from
> wanting to keep the data logically in Fortran-order: the logically
> fastest-varying (most local) indices are first, the slowest-varying
> indices (least local) la
Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:56:59 +0100, Ivan Vilata i Balaguer wrote:
[clip]
> Dropping by the very interesting discussion, if 2x2 tensors is the basic
> element you want to store (varying with a series of paramenters), and
> since it doesn't make much sense for the chunkshape to split a tensor in
> the m
Pauli Virtanen (el 2007-11-23 a les 01:18:18 +) va dir::
>[...]
> Let me first clarify the reasons why I chose to describe the data as an
> array of dimensions
>
> (2, 2, N, N, P, Q)
>
> In the problem I solved, the quantity of interest is a 2 x 2 tensor which
> is a function defined
