On 2012-01-05 05:14, David Mertens wrote:
> 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. :-)
maybe "order"? "rank"? "degree"? ... I think "shape" is clearer though,
since the others are way overused.
marmosets,
Bryan
> On Jan 4, 2012 8:39 PM, "chm" <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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
--
Bryan Jurish "There is *always* one more bug."
[email protected] -Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
