Add docs about nested Vecs/Arrays

Fixes #609 (assuming we don't want to actually add conversion
methods).

Author: jturner314

src/lib.rs

@@ -939,7 +939,8 @@ pub type Ixs = isize;
 /// <sup><a name="req_contig">3</a></sup>Works only if the array is contiguous.
 ///
 /// The table above does not include all the constructors; it only shows
-/// conversions to/from `Vec`s/slices. See below for more constructors.
+/// conversions to/from `Vec`s/slices. See
+/// [below](#constructor-methods-for-owned-arrays) for more constructors.
 ///
 /// [ArrayView::reborrow()]: type.ArrayView.html#method.reborrow
 /// [ArrayViewMut::reborrow()]: type.ArrayViewMut.html#method.reborrow
@@ -952,6 +953,101 @@ pub type Ixs = isize;
 /// [.view()]: #method.view
 /// [.view_mut()]: #method.view_mut
 ///
+/// ### Conversions from Nested `Vec`s/`Array`s
+///
+/// It's generally a good idea to avoid nested `Vec`/`Array` types, such as
+/// `Vec<Vec<A>>` or `Vec<Array2<A>>` because:
+///
+/// * they require extra heap allocations compared to a single `Array`,
+///
+/// * they can scatter data all over memory (because of multiple allocations),
+///
+/// * they cause unnecessary indirection (traversing multiple pointers to reach
+///   the data),
+///
+/// * they don't enforce consistent shape within the nested
+///   `Vec`s/`ArrayBase`s, and
+///
+/// * they are generally more difficult to work with.
+///
+/// The most common case where users might consider using nested
+/// `Vec`s/`Array`s is when creating an array by appending rows/subviews in a
+/// loop, where the rows/subviews are computed within the loop. However, there
+/// are better ways than using nested `Vec`s/`Array`s.
+///
+/// If you know ahead-of-time the shape of the final array, the cleanest
+/// solution is to allocate the final array before the loop, and then assign
+/// the data to it within the loop, like this:
+///
+/// ```rust
+/// use ndarray::{array, Array2, Axis};
+///
+/// let mut arr = Array2::zeros((2, 3));
+/// for (i, mut row) in arr.axis_iter_mut(Axis(0)).enumerate() {
+///     // Perform calculations and assign to `row`; this is a trivial example:
+///     row.fill(i);
+/// }
+/// assert_eq!(arr, array![[0, 0, 0], [1, 1, 1]]);
+/// ```
+///
+/// If you don't know ahead-of-time the shape of the final array, then the
+/// cleanest solution is generally to append the data to a flat `Vec`, and then
+/// convert it to an `Array` at the end with
+/// [`::from_shape_vec()`](#method.from_shape_vec). You just have to be careful
+/// that the layout of the data (the order of the elements in the flat `Vec`)
+/// is correct.
+///
+/// ```rust
+/// use ndarray::{array, Array2};
+///
+/// # fn main() -> Result<(), Box<std::error::Error>> {
+/// let ncols = 3;
+/// let mut data = Vec::new();
+/// let mut nrows = 0;
+/// for i in 0..2 {
+///     // Compute `row` and append it to `data`; this is a trivial example:
+///     let row = vec![i; ncols];
+///     data.extend_from_slice(&row);
+///     nrows += 1;
+/// }
+/// let arr = Array2::from_shape_vec((nrows, ncols), data)?;
+/// assert_eq!(arr, array![[0, 0, 0], [1, 1, 1]]);
+/// # Ok(())
+/// # }
+/// ```
+///
+/// If neither of these options works for you, and you really need to convert
+/// nested `Vec`/`Array` instances to an `Array`, the cleanest solution is
+/// generally to use
+/// [`Iterator::flatten()`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#method.flatten)
+/// to get a flat `Vec`, and then convert the `Vec` to an `Array` with
+/// [`::from_shape_vec()`](#method.from_shape_vec), like this:
+///
+/// ```rust
+/// use ndarray::{array, Array2, Array3};
+///
+/// # fn main() -> Result<(), Box<std::error::Error>> {
+/// let nested: Vec<Array2<i32>> = vec![
+///     array![[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]],
+///     array![[7, 8, 9], [10, 11, 12]],
+/// ];
+/// let inner_shape = nested[0].dim();
+/// let shape = (nested.len(), inner_shape.0, inner_shape.1);
+/// let flat: Vec<i32> = nested.iter().flatten().cloned().collect();
+/// let arr = Array3::from_shape_vec(shape, flat)?;
+/// assert_eq!(arr, array![
+///     [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6]],
+///     [[7, 8, 9], [10, 11, 12]],
+/// ]);
+/// # Ok(())
+/// # }
+/// ```
+///
+/// Note that this implementation assumes that the nested `Vec`s are all the
+/// same shape and that the `Vec` is non-empty. Depending on your application,
+/// it may be a good idea to add checks for these assumptions and possibly
+/// choose a different way to handle the empty case.
+///
 // # For implementors
 //
 // All methods must uphold the following constraints: