I could just drop the "2d".  I've been making the equivalence that the term
"image" implies two dimensions, and two dimensions only.  The term "image"
might be enough to get across the fact that this function is intended for
two-dimensional arrays - what do you think?


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:44 AM, rhewett <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In sunpy/image/coalignment.py:
>
> > +    Parameters
> > +    ----------
> > +    y : ndarray
> > +        An one dimensional numpy array of shape 3.
> > +
> > +    Returns
> > +    -------
> > +    location : float
> > +        A digit, the location of the parabola maximum.
> > +    """
> > +    numerator = -0.5 * y.dot([-1, 0, 1])
> > +    denominator = y.dot([1, -2, 1])
> > +    return numerator / denominator
> > +
> > +
> > +def repair_2dimage_nonfinite(z):
>
> Not sure how we approach this from a standards perspective, but I think
> this reads cleaner as repair_2d_image_nonfinite.
>
> Somewhat related, we are not consistent in our documentation on the use of
> 2d vs 2D. I tend to prefer the latter, but we should pick one and stick
> with it, as it will matter in function calls like this. Until this PR is
> merged, this only comes up in documentation and function documentation.
>
> --
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/sunpy/sunpy/pull/903/files#r12096361>
> .
>