On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 1:17 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

On Fr, 2015-01-30 at 19:52 -0800, Jaime Fernández del Río wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com>

> wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 12:56 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río

> <jaime.frio@gmail.com> wrote:

> [...]

<snip>

>

> Could we make it more like: check to see if the last dimension

> works.

> If not, raise an error (and let the user transpose some other

> dimension there if that's what they wanted)? Or require the

> user to

> specify which dimension will absorb the shape change? (If we

> were

> doing this from scratch, then it would be tempting to just say

> that we

> always add a new dimension at the end with newtype.itemsize /

> oldtype.itemsize entries, or absorb such a dimension if

> shrinking. As

> a bonus, this would always work, regardless of contiguity!

> Except that

> when shrinking the last dimension would have to be contiguous,

> of

> course.)

>

>

> When we roll @ in and people start working with stacks of matrices, we

> will probably find ourselves having to create an alias, similar to .T,

> for .swapaxes(-1, -2). Searching for the smallest stride allows to

> take views of such arrays, which does not work right now because the

> array is no longer contiguous globally.

>

That is true, but I agree with Nathaniel at least as far as that I would

prefer a user to be able to safely use `view` even he has not even an

inkling about what his memory layout is. One option would be an

`axis=-1` default (maybe FutureWarn this from `axis=None` which would

look at order, see below -- or maybe have axis='A', 'C' and 'F' and

default to 'A' for starters).

This even now could start creating bugs when enabling relaxed

strides :(, because your good old fortran order complex array being

viewed as a float one could expand along the wrong axis, and even

without such arrays swap order pretty fast when operating on them, which

can create impossibly to find bugs, because even a poweruser is likely

to forget about such things.

Of course you could argue that view is a poweruser feature and a user

using it should keep these things in mind.... Though if you argue that,

you can almost just use `np.ndarray` directly ;) -- ok, not really

considering how cumbersome it is, but still.

I have been giving this some thought, and am willing to concede that my first proposal may have been too ambitious. So even though the knob goes to 11, we can always do things incrementally. I am also wary of adding new keywords when it seems obvious that we do not have the functionality completely figured out, so here's my new proposal:

- The objective is that a view of an array that is the result of slicing a contiguous array should be possible, if it remains "contiguous" (meaning stride == itemsize) along its original contiguous (first or last) dimension. This eliminates axis transposition from the previous proposal, although reversing the axes completely would also work.
- To verify this, unless the C contiguous or Fortran contiguous flags are set, we would still need to look at the strides. An array would be C contiguous if, starting from the last stride it is equal to the itemsize, and working backwards every next stride is larger or equal than the product of the previous stride by the previous dimension. dimensions of size 1 would be ignored for these, except for the last one, which would be taken to have stride = itemsize. The Fortran case is of course the same in reverse.
- I think the above combined with the current preference of C contiguousness over Fortran, would actually allow the views to always be reversible, which is also a nice thing to have.

This eliminates most of the weirdness, but extends current functionality to cover cases like Jens reported a few days back.

Does this sound better?

Jaime

- Sebastian

>

> I guess the main consideration for this is that we may be

> stuck with

> stuff b/c of backwards compatibility. Can you maybe say a

> little bit

> about what is allowed now, and what constraints that puts on

> things?

> E.g. are we already grovelling around in strides and picking

> random

> dimensions in some cases?

>

>

> Just to restate it: right now we only allow new views if the array is

> globally contiguous, so either along the first or last dimension.

>

>

> Jaime

>

>

> -n

>

> --

> Nathaniel J. Smith

> Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of

> Edinburgh

> http://vorpus.org

> _______________________________________________

> NumPy-Discussion mailing list

> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

>

>

>

>

>

> --

> (\__/)

> ( O.o)

> ( > <) Este es Conejo. Copia a Conejo en tu firma y ayúdale en sus

> planes de dominación mundial.

> _______________________________________________

> NumPy-Discussion mailing list

> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________

NumPy-Discussion mailing list

NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

(\__/)

( O.o)

( > <) Este es Conejo. Copia a Conejo en tu firma y ayúdale en sus planes de dominación mundial.

( O.o)

( > <) Este es Conejo. Copia a Conejo en tu firma y ayúdale en sus planes de dominación mundial.