On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.barker@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 would submit that some of the confusion came from the fact that with ravel(), and the 'A' and 'K' flags, you are forced to figure out BOTH index_order and memory_order -- with one flag -- I know I'm still not clear what I'd get in complex situations.
Again, I just can't see a reason not to separate these ideas.
I agree, but really separating them -- but ideally having a given function only deal with one or the other, not both at once.
We are not arguing about backwards compatibility here, only about clarity.
while it could be changed while strictly maintaining backward compatibility -- it is a change that would need to filter through the docs, example, random blog posts, stack=overflow questions, etc......
Not only that, we would then also be in the situation of having `order` *and* `xxx_order` keywords. This is also confusing, at least as much as the current situation imho. Ralf
Is that worth it? I'm not convinced
Right. I think you may now be close to my own discomfort when faced with working out (fast) what:
np.reshape(a, (3,4), order='F')
I still think it's cause you know too much.... ;-)
-Chris
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer
Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
Chris.Barker@noaa.gov _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion