On 25/04/2008, Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2008/4/25 Alan G Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I must have misunderstood: > > I thought the agreement was to > > provisionally return a 1d array for x[0], > > while we hashed through the other proposals. > > The agreement was: > > a) That x[0][0] should be equal to x[0,0] and > b) That x[0,:] should be equal to x[0] (as for ndarrays) > > This breaks as little functionality as possible, at the cost of one > (instead of two) API changes.
Hold on. There has definitely been some confusion here. This is not what I thought I was suggesting, or what Alan thought he was suggesting. I do not think special-casing matrices for which one dimension happens to be one is a good idea at all, even temporarily. This is the kind of thing that drives users crazy. My suggested stopgap fix was to make x[0] return a 1D *array*; I feel that this will result in less special-casing. In fact I wasn't aware that anyone had proposed the fix you implemented. Can we change the stopgap solution? > We should now discuss the proposals on the table, choose a good one, > and implement all the API changes necessary for 1.2 or 2. It's a pity > we have to change the API again, but the current situation is not > tenable. Yes, well, it really looks unlikely we will be able to agree on what the correct solution is before 1.1, so I would like to have something non-broken for that release. Anne _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
