On 1/4/2012 11:17 PM, Craig DeForest wrote:
Hrm. As long as we're on terminology, how do you describe a PDL with
dim list [3,5]?
With increasing levels of generality:
A pdl with/of shape [3,5] # this proposal!
A 2D pdl
A pdl
This gives a clearer way to describe
threading and the rules (e.g., they
have compatible shapes...).
--Chris
We've/I've been calling it a 2-D PDL with dim sizes 3 and 5 (as in
"dim 0 has size 3, and dim 1 has size 5"), or alternatively a
3x5-PDL. Its first row would be called a 3-PDL or a 1-D PDL with
size 3.
On Jan 4, 2012, at 9:14 PM, 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. :-)
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 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
