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

Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@gmail....
Sat Apr 6 03:51:58 CDT 2013


On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM,  <josef.pktd@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.

Ralf

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.

P.P.S. expect an identical response from me to future proposals that
include backwards compatibility breaks of heavily used functions for
something that's not a functional enhancement or bug fix. Such proposals
are just not OK.

P.P.P.S. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "default keyword". If layout
overrules order and layout's default value is not None, you're still
proposing a backwards compatibility break.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20130406/8b969c6c/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list