Skip to content

Conversation

@max-sixty
Copy link
Collaborator

@max-sixty max-sixty commented Oct 19, 2023

(I was planning on putting an issue in, but then thought it wasn't much more difficult to make the PR. But it's totally fine if we don't think this is a good idea...)

Allowing a tuple of dims means we're reliant on dimension order, which we really try and not be reliant on. It also makes the type signature even more complicated.

So are we OK to encourage a dict of dim: chunksize, rather than a tuple of chunksizes?

(I was planning on putting an issue in, but then thought it wasn't much more difficult to make the PR. But it's totally fine if we don't think this is a good idea...)

Allowing a tuple of dims means we're reliant on dimension order, which we really try and not be reliant on. It also makes the type signature even more complicated.

So are we OK to encourage a dict of `dim: chunksizes`, rather than a tuple of chunksizes?
@TomNicholas
Copy link
Member

I support this. This motivation was the reason why I tried to standardise the chunks properties by adding .chunksizes alongside .chunks. (see #5900)

@max-sixty max-sixty added plan to merge Final call for comments and removed needs discussion labels Oct 20, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

plan to merge Final call for comments topic-typing

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants