On Thu, Jan 10, 2019, 01:55 Eric Wieser Slicing is a lot more important than some keyword. And design-wise,
> filling the numpy namespace with singletons for keyword to other things in
> that same namespace just makes no sense to me.
>
> At least from the perspective of discoverability, you could
On Wed, Dec 26, 2018, 18:29 Sebastian Berg Hi all,
>
> In https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11897 I am looking into the
> addition of a `copy=np.never_copy` argument to:
> * np.array
> * arr.reshape/np.reshape
> * arr.astype
>
> Which would cause an error to be raised when numpy cannot gua
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019, 14:22 Feng Yu Hi,
>
> Was it ever brought up the possibility of a new array class (ndrefonly,
> ndview) that is strictly no copy?
>
> All operations on ndrefonly will return ndrefonly and if the operation
> cannot be completed without making a copy, it shall throw an error.
>
Slicing is a lot more important than some keyword. And design-wise, filling
the numpy namespace with singletons for keyword to other things in that
same namespace just makes no sense to me.
At least from the perspective of discoverability, you could argue that
string constants form a namespace of
On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 11:30 AM Eric Wieser
wrote:
>
> @Ralf
>
> np.newaxis is not relevant here - it’s a simple alias for None, is just
> there for code readability, and is much more widely applicable than
> np.never_copy would be.
>
> Is there any particular reason we chose to use None? If I we
