On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:I would submit that some of the confusion came from the fact that with
> It was not enough for me or the three others who will publicly admit
> to the shame of finding it confusing without further thought.
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.
I agree, but really separating them -- but ideally having a given
> Again, I just can't see a reason not to separate these ideas.
function only deal with one or the other, not both at once.
while it could be changed while strictly maintaining backward
> We are
> not arguing about backwards compatibility here, only about clarity.
compatibility -- it is a change that would need to filter through the
docs, example, random blog posts, stack=overflow questions, etc......
Is that worth it? I'm not convinced
I still think it's cause you know too much.... ;-)
> 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')
-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