Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

get_dim_vector in manipulator #383

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Oct 16, 2020
Merged

get_dim_vector in manipulator #383

merged 5 commits into from
Oct 16, 2020

Conversation

alkino
Copy link
Member

@alkino alkino commented Oct 13, 2020

No description provided.

@alkino alkino force-pushed the third_manipulator branch 2 times, most recently from dcb970b to 55829af Compare October 14, 2020 08:10
@alkino alkino force-pushed the third_manipulator branch 3 times, most recently from 6abfd93 to 5786a13 Compare October 14, 2020 11:33
@alkino alkino force-pushed the third_manipulator branch 2 times, most recently from 7f08bba to e07af2f Compare October 14, 2020 14:03
Base automatically changed from second_manipulator to master October 15, 2020 15:35
@alkino alkino changed the title get_dim_vector in manipulator [Has to be rebase on master] get_dim_vector in manipulator Oct 15, 2020
ferdonline
ferdonline previously approved these changes Oct 16, 2020
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@ferdonline ferdonline left a comment •
edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I personally have nothing against getDimensions. Dimensions has been the word used in highfive since ever afaik. Switching to a synonym like “shape” is a matter of taste so IMO we shouldn’t do it as would break api and consistency. Further it makes it sound like a property, something that has been avoided in Highfive, hence most public methods start with a verb.
If however you introduce a getNumberOfDimensions I agree with that naming (including the “of”)

@tdegeus
Copy link
Collaborator

tdegeus commented Oct 16, 2020

I personally have nothing against getDimensions. Dimensions has been the word used in highfive since ever afaik. Switching to a synonym like “shape” is a matter of taste so IMO we shouldn’t do it as would break api and consistency. Further it makes it sound like a property, something that afaik has been avoided in Highfive.
If however you introduce a getNumberOfDimensions I agree with that naming (including the “of”)

Makes sense. But then why not harmonise the internal and external naming:

  • number_dimensions -> dimensions
  • recursive_number_dimensions -> recursive_dimensions

?

@ferdonline
Copy link
Contributor

ferdonline commented Oct 16, 2020 •
edited

number_dimensions -> dimensions
recursive_number_dimensions -> recursive_dimensions

dimensions to me sounds the dimensions themselves (numpy shape). if you want to have it short, then ndim, otherwise as suggested, number_of_dimensions also ok with me.
similar thoughts for the other one. Either as is, or one of recursive_ndim, recursive_number_of_dimensions
Or @tdegeus , was your suggestion ndimensions (with n)? Would have nothing against it.

@tdegeus
Copy link
Collaborator

tdegeus commented Oct 16, 2020

number_dimensions -> dimensions
recursive_number_dimensions -> recursive_dimensions

dimensions to me sounds the dimensions themselves (numpy shape). if you want to have it short, then ndim, otherwise as suggested, number_of_dimensions also ok with me.
similar thoughts for the other one. Either as is, or one of recursive_ndim, recursive_number_of_dimensions
Or @tdegeus , was your suggestion ndimensions (with n)? Would have nothing against it.

ndim sounds good. Or otherwise rank could be considered

@ferdonline
Copy link
Contributor

ndim sounds good. Or otherwise rank could be considered

I would prefer ndim since it's a short for dimensions. Also, the fact that it is the same as numpy is nice

@tdegeus
Copy link
Collaborator

tdegeus commented Oct 16, 2020

the fact that it is the same as numpy is nice

Agreed!

@alkino
Copy link
Member Author

alkino commented Oct 16, 2020

Should I change it?
n_dims r_n_dims?

@ferdonline
Copy link
Contributor

So, last version is ndim and recursive_ndim

@alkino alkino merged commit bf38766 into master Oct 16, 2020
@alkino alkino deleted the third_manipulator branch October 16, 2020 18:50
@alkino alkino mentioned this pull request Aug 27, 2021
Closed
11 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@matz-e matz-e matz-e left review comments

@tdegeus tdegeus tdegeus left review comments

@ferdonline ferdonline ferdonline approved these changes

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@alkino @tdegeus @ferdonline @matz-e