larry-discuss team mailing list archive

[josef.pktd@xxxxxxxxx]

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:42 PM,  <josef.pktd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 11:16 PM, Keith Goodman <kwgoodman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:54 PM,  <josef.pktd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> (back on mailinglist)
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Keith Goodman <kwgoodman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM,  <josef.pktd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> I don't have a strong opinion either about the dimension reduction,
>>>>> for consistency with the numpy philosophy the dimension should be
>>>>> reduced, for working with larry it is easier for a user to remove than
>>>>> to add an axis.
>>>>
>>>> How about insertaxis for the name? Or do you like addaxis better?
>>>>
>>>> insertaxis(axis=0, label=None)
>>>>
>>>
>>> definitely not expand_dims, I had to look at the changes in scipy svn to find it
>>>
>>> I usually think of it as addaxis, but I can get used to insertaxis
>>> (from list analogy)
>>>
>>> you can use np.expand_dims to insert axis into x
>>
>> Very nice. I didn't know that function existed. (It even handles
>> negative axes. I should make a unit test to make sure larry methods
>> can handle negative axes.)
>>
>
> I'm just reading the new lix
>
> For this case  lar.lix[['a']:['b']:2]
>
> why do you need the list check? you raise a ValueError if it's not a
> list. this and the fact that slicing start and stop need to be valid
> labels, seems to indicate that the list is not necessary, i.e.
> lar.lix['a':'b':2] , and lar.lix['a':'b':2,...]  should be unambiguous
> for any label type.
> Do you have an example where this would break? I don't see one right now.
>
> I think you can merge if your unit tests pass. Some cosmetic cleaning
> we could also do in the main branch, e.g. maybe the code duplication
> is not necessary (unless it's not really duplicate, I'm only reading)
>
> Are you ok with merging? There might be a merge conflict with the
> changelog. I got one each time, I merge your branch.
>
> Josef
>

I think class getitemlabel  should be capitalized. Ignoring pep8 for
larry is bearable given the numpy policy, but for other cases I like
to read pep8 python (of course there are other exceptions)

Josef