[Numpy-discussion] Ransom Proposals

Colin J. Williams cjw at sympatico.ca
Sun Mar 26 06:17:03 CST 2006

Fernando Perez wrote:

> Sasha wrote:
>> 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.
Perhaps most of the functions could be in a compatibility module, which 
the user would import as needed, with most cases defined as something like:
reshape(arr, d1, d2, ...)= numpy.ndarray.reshape(arr,d1, d2, ...)

Colin W.

> Cheers,
> f

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list