[Numpy-discussion] Memory order of array copies
njs at pobox.com
Mon Oct 1 08:35:56 EDT 2012
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Gael Varoquaux
<gael.varoquaux at normalesup.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 07:17:42PM +0100, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Is there anything better to do than simply revert np.copy() to its
>> traditional behaviour and accept that np.copy(a) and a.copy() will
>> continue to have different semantics indefinitely?
> Have np.copy take an 'order=None', which would translate to 'K'. Detect
> 'None' as a sentinel that order as not been specified. If the order is
> not specified, raise a FutureWarning that np.copy will change semantics
> in 2 releases. In two releases, do the change.
I'm actually suggesting that arr.copy() should change, rather than
np.copy() (the opposite of the change currently in master), but that
aside: the problem with this approach is that the vast majority of
calls to these functions don't care at all about this order thing, so
spewing warnings all over the place is pretty useless at helping
people actually detect and fix their code. Compare to the
np.diagonal() change in 1.7, where we don't issue a warning when
np.diagonal() is called, but wait until people write to the array.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion