-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 36
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.
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
Tag extent behaviour [discussion] #802
Labels
Milestone
Comments
From Jan Current behaviour (from #801 I believe?) is:
New behaviour could be (this is my current proposal and personally preferred behaviour):
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
We need to decide on the exact behaviour of extents for a couple of edge cases. Currently, extents are inclusive, so for a tag that has extents
(10, 20)
(assuming the interval of the underlying data is 1) the returned data has the shape(11, 21)
. This should probably change such that the extents are equivalent to the shape.To generalise a little, let's assume a DataArray with n-dimensions, all regularly sampled with a sampling interval for
dn
(for dimension n). In that case, a tag with position(p1, p2, ..., pn)
and extent(e1, e2, ..., en)
should be equivalent to slicing the underlying array as:[p1*d1:(p1+e1)*d1, p2*d2:(p2+e2)*d2, ..., pn*dn:(pn+en)*dn]
This would make extents exclusive.
There's also the more complicated question of what it means for an extent to be missing, what it means if it's 0, and what it means if it's 1. If we follow the above logic (and think about it in numpy equivalent behaviour),
None
,0
, and1
are all different, but it might make sense if we treatNone
as0
and take it to mean drop this dimension, while 1 returns an extra dimension with length 1.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: