[Numpy-discussion] Add guaranteed no-copy to array creation and reshape?
toddrjen at gmail.com
Thu Jan 10 02:49:14 EST 2019
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 01:55 Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+numpy at gmail.com wrote:
> Slicing is a lot more important than some keyword. And design-wise,
> filling the numpy namespace with singletons for keyword to other things in
> that same namespace just makes no sense to me.
> At least from the perspective of discoverability, you could argue that
> string constants form a namespace of their won, and so growing the “string”
> namespace is not inherently better than growing any other. The main flaw in
> that comparison is that picking np.never_copy to be a singleton forever
> prevents us reusing that name to become a function.
> Perhaps the solution is to use np.NEVER_COPY instead - that’s never going
> to clash with a function name we want to add in future, and using upper
> attributes as arguments in that way is pretty typical for python (
> subprocess.PIPE, socket.SOCK_STREAM, etc…)
What about a namespace as someone mentioned earlier. Perhaps
You could fairly argue that this approach is outdated in the face of
> enum.Enum - in which case we could go for the more heavy-handed
> np.CopyMode.NEVER, which still has a unique enough case for name clashes
> with functions never to be an issue.
Would all three conditions be supported this way or only `NEVER`?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion