[Numpy-discussion] 1.6: branching and release notes
Mon Mar 14 01:22:12 CDT 2011
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Charles R Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:23 PM, Mark Wiebe <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:22 AM, Ralf Gommers <
>> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> On Tuesday (~2am GMT) I plan to create the 1.6.x branch and tag the
>>> first beta. So please get your last commits for 1.6 in by Monday
>>> Also, please review and add to the 1.6.0 release notes. I put in
>>> headers for several items that need a few lines in the notes, I hope
>>> this can be filled in by the authors of those features (Charles:
>>> Legendre polynomials, Pearu: assumed shape arrays, Mark: a bunch of
>> I've added a few more things, and made a small change to the iterator
>> construction API that I've discovered is useful, but would be more difficult
>> to do later. The Python exposure of the iterator is renamed from 'newiter'
>> to 'nditer', is that a reasonable name or does anyone have a better
> I think nditer is fine, certainly better than newiter. I don't see where
> nditer appears in the changes though, the test still uses newiter.
I didn't rename the files, I can do that too.
> On the arr_ravel_coords name and the python exposure of same, I've been
> thinking ravel_fancyindex might be more suggestive than ravel_coords.
Hmm, that doesn't seem quite right to me, it implies something fancier about
it than I think it actually is. Maybe the ideal would be to have it be
ravel_index/unravel_flatindex, but the unravel_index function already
existed as precedent. On the other hand, in lots of contexts just saying
"index" sounds like it should be one number, not a tuple, which is why in
the iterator API the "index" usage refers to a C or Fortran-order flat
index. Of the options we've considered so far, probably ravel_multiindex is
my favorite, though nothing has really stood out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion