Re: [Numpy-discussion] The NumPy Fortran-ordering quiz

[Charles R H. <cha...@gm...>]

On 10/18/06, Travis Oliphant <oli...@ee...> wrote:
>
> Charles R Harris wrote:
>
> >
> > Could we make a few changes ;)
> >
> > For printing the flags I would suggest using C-Contiguous and
> > F-Contiguous so folks don't have to read the book. And at the c level
> > define alternates, i.e, #define c-contiguous contiguous or whatever.
> > That way backward compatibility would be maintained but more
> > descriptive names would be available.
>
> Printing the flags is not intended for the casual user.  So, I'd like to
> keep consistent with C-level names and the names that are printed.
>
> CONTIGUOUS is the old name Numeric used.  It always meant C-CONTIGUOUS
> and so that meaning is preserved.  FORTRAN is the new one flag and it
> means FORTRAN CONTIGUOUS.
>
> So, you want something like?
>
> #define NPY_C_CONTIGUOUS NPY_CONTIGUOUS
> #define NPY_F_CONTIGUOUS NPY_FORTRAN
>
> and to have C_CONTIGUOUS and F_CONTIGUOUS print for the flags description?


Yes, I think that would be more informative.

I'm not opposed to it, but I don't really see the need.  It's just a
> semantic question.  Given the history of CONTIGUOUS in Numeric I thought
> it was clear that CONTIGUOUS always meant C-contiguous.


Well, I knew that for numeric, but it was a good deal less obvious in combo
with the order keyword.  For instance, contiguous could change its meaning
to match up with FORTRAN, so that FORTRAN=True and CONTIGUOUS=True meant
Fortran contiguous, which was sort of what I was thinking. Explicit never
hurts.

Chuck