From: Sven S. <sve...@gm...> - 2006-07-19 13:06:51
|
Bill Baxter schrieb: > For 1-d inputs I think r_ should act like vstack, and c_ should act > like column_stack. > Currently r_ and c_ both act like hstack for 1-d inputs. Well Bill, as I said before, you should have stayed with matrices ;-) Seriously, I think all the quirks you mentioned recently are now gone. I mean what you're experiencing now ist just logical from the point of view that rows and columns are 2d concepts, so a 1d array just isn't enough. Having said that, however, here are some more constructive comments: First, I think using c_ is not recommended, it doesn't even appear in the book. But I have no idea why that is so, I'm using it also (with matrices), so I think it's valid to question that deprecation. Indeed it seems natural to make it act like column_stack for 1d arrays!? Second, changing r_ would obviously break some people's codes. Two workarounds: You switch to matrices (sorry, couldn't resist), or you use vstack (trivial, sorry again). > > Also isn't it odd that there's a column_stack, but no row_stack? I > guess that's because row_stack would just be an alias for vstack, but > still. > I agree that for the poor non-matrix-users it would be good to have a pair of names that obviously belong together, instead of the current vstack/column_stack situation; with matrices you have the choice of r_/c_ or vstack/hstack that do exactly what you want (as you know). Good luck, Sven |