"shape" sounds sensible to me.
What about "dummy dimensions" ?
Karl
On 06/01/2012, at 2:04 PM, chm wrote:
> I've just pushed a minimal PDL::shape method and
> sub to the latest PDL git. Please report any
> problems. It is basically pdl($piddle->dims) so
> identical except for output type: pdl vs list.
>
> --Chris
>
> On 1/4/2012 9:36 PM, chm wrote:
>> I propose we use "shape" as the standard term to
>> describe the set of dimension extents for a piddle.
>> E.g., roughly and without error checking:
>>
>> pdl> sub shape { pdl($_[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
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4122 - Release Date: 01/04/12
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Perldl mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
_______________________________________________
Perldl mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.jach.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/perldl
