For months I've felt like there was some fancy set-based term that I had heard, but for the life of me I can't remember it. Shape is not it, but it sounds good to me anyway. :-)
David On Jan 4, 2012 8:39 PM, "chm" <[email protected]> wrote: > I propose we use "shape" as the standard term to > describe the set of dimension extents for a piddle. > E.g., roughly and without error checking: > > pdl> sub shape { pdl($_[0]->dims) } > > pdl> $a = zeros(3,2,5); > > pdl> p shape($a) > [3 2 5] > > This follows the notation in a number of other > array languages such as Fortran 95 and later, > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/**gfortran/SHAPE.html<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gfortran/SHAPE.html> > I think standardizing on this terminology could > clarify documentation and be useful in the PDL > Book endeavor. > > Thoughts? > Chris > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Perldl mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.jach.hawaii.**edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl<http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl> >
_______________________________________________ Perldl mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
