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

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM,  <josef.pktd at 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.
>>>
>>> You might not have read my follow-up proposing to drop steps 3 and 4
>>> if you felt they were unacceptable.
>>>
>>> > 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.
>>>
>>> No, I did make that proposal, and in the spirit of negotiation and
>>> consensus, I subsequently modified my proposal, as I hope you'd expect
>>> in this situation.
>>
>>
>> You have had clear NOs to the various incarnations of your proposal from 3
>> active developers of this community, not once but two or three times from
>> each of those developers. Furthermore you have got only a couple of +0.5s,
>> after 90 emails no one else seems to feel that this is a change we really
>> have to have this change. Therefore I don't expect another modification of
>> your proposal, I expect you to drop it.
>
> OK - I think I have a better understanding of the 'model' now.
>
>> As another poster said, this thread has run its course. The technical issues
>> are clear, and apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree about the
>> seriousness of the confusion. Please please go and fix the docs in the way
>> you deem best, and leave it at that. And triple please not another
>> governance thread.

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/3294

Cheers,

Matthew