[Numpy-discussion] Raveling, reshape order keyword unnecessarily confuses index and memory ordering

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM,  <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > It's not *any* cost, this goes deep and wide, it's one of the basic
>> >> > concepts of numpy that you want to rename.
>> >>
>> >> The proposal I last made was to change the default name to 'layout'
>> >> after some period to be agreed - say - P - with suitable warning in
>> >> the docstring up until that time, and after, and leave 'order' as an
>> >> alias forever.
>> >
>> >
>> > The above paragraph is simply incorrect. Your last proposal also
>> > included
>> > deprecation warnings and a future backwards compatibility break by
>> > removing
>> > 'order'.
>> >
>> > If you now say you're not proposing steps 3 and 4 anymore, then you're
>> > back
>> > to what I called option (2) - duplicate keywords forever. Which for me
>> > is
>> > undesirable, for reasons I already mentioned.
>>
>> You might not have read my follow-up proposing to drop steps 3 and 4
>> if you felt they were unacceptable.
>>
>> > P.S. being called short-sighted and damaging numpy by responding to a
>> > proposal you now say you didn't make is pretty damn annoying.
>>
>> No, I did make that proposal, and in the spirit of negotiation and
>> consensus, I subsequently modified my proposal, as I hope you'd expect
>> in this situation.
>
>
> You have had clear NOs to the various incarnations of your proposal from 3
> active developers of this community, not once but two or three times from
> each of those developers. Furthermore you have got only a couple of +0.5s,
> after 90 emails no one else seems to feel that this is a change we really
> have to have this change. Therefore I don't expect another modification of
> your proposal, I expect you to drop it.

OK - I think I have a better understanding of the 'model' now.

> As another poster said, this thread has run its course. The technical issues
> are clear, and apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree about the
> seriousness of the confusion. Please please go and fix the docs in the way
> you deem best, and leave it at that. And triple please not another
> governance thread.

The governance threads happen because of the lack of governance, as
this thread shows.  I don't agree that decisions should be taken like
this (+1, -1, No!, Yes!).  I think they should be taken by negotiation
and agreement.  You disagree, but on whose authority, I do not know,
and we have no way of resolving that, because there is - no governance
thread.

>> I'm am honestly sorry that I offended you.
>
>
> Thank you. I apologize as well if my tone of the last message was too
> strong.

Thank you in turn, that is generous of you,

Best,

Matthew