Perry Greenfield wrote:
On Feb 17, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
This is basically new behavior that numarray has started supporting. I just think numarray missed an important case of flattened indexing that MATLAB supports. My current proposal would distinguish between single-index array cases and tuple-index array cases. I'm still thinking about the X.flat possibility. Basically, I think that direction would requires a new "generic array view" or something like that. It may be worth trying, but I'm not sure I want to go that direction right now until I convince more people to come on board with Numeric3.
It was new behavior in the sense that Numeric didn't support multidimensional array takes and puts at the time. For a long time it was the only kind of array indexing IDL supported (1-d and implicit .flat of multidimensional arrays). Speaking only for myself, I found the .flat semantics more often as unwanted behavior than convenient. I'd rather keep the numarray behavior in this case and make the .flat case explicit (but I understand the difficulty of that approach). There is the possibility of a custom index option (but ugly I suppose)
X[K, flatten]
where flatten is a special object that indexing recognizes as signaling a different interpretation to indexing.
+1 on Travis's suggestion of X.flat[K] behavior, since I think it is explicit and intuitive. - 1 on X[K. flatten] I think in the long term that the X.flat[K] proposal should be pursued, even for non-contiguous arrays. Since we have decided that slice-as-view behavior is the default, then I believe the user should not have to worry whether the internal structure of an array is continguous or not. -- Paul -- Paul Barrett, PhD Space Telescope Science Institute Phone: 410-338-4475 ESS/Science Software Branch FAX: 410-338-4767 Baltimore, MD 21218