[Numpy-discussion] Ransom Proposals
Fernando.Perez at colorado.edu
Sat Mar 25 17:50:07 CST 2006
> On 3/25/06, Tim Hochberg <tim.hochberg at cox.net> wrote:
>>However, if reshape does not return a view, let's say obj is a list, it
>>will fail. And not *just* fail, it will fail silently. There are obvious
>>ways to fix this program (set obj.shape instead of using reshape, for
>>example), but the fewer perils I need to remember the better.
> Or, you can use the reshape method instead of function. I believe
> numpy advocates use of methods instead of functions. What you observe
> is just another reason for that. Since functions like reshape remain
> in numpy primarily for backwards compatibility, I would be against any
> change in semantics.
Mmh. I bet many people will continue to use the functional interface for a
long time. I'd vote for uniform semantics before 1.0. Really, the whole
'reshape(foo) and foo.reshape() have different view/copy behavior' thing is
horrible. WAY too easy to forget/confuse. Special cases are /almost never/
special enough to warrant this kind of extra mental overhead.
At least I know /I/ will forget, get confused, and make mistakes. So I'd like
to ask for as-uniform-as possible behavior.
More information about the Numpy-discussion