[headlessNode]

---

type: pre_commit_static_analysis_report
description: Results of running static analysis checks when committing changes. report:

• task: lint_filenames status: passed
• task: lint_editorconfig status: passed
• task: lint_markdown status: passed
• task: lint_package_json status: passed
• task: lint_repl_help status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_src status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_cli status: na
• task: lint_javascript_examples status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_tests status: passed
• task: lint_javascript_benchmarks status: passed
• task: lint_python status: na
• task: lint_r status: na
• task: lint_c_src status: missing_dependencies
• task: lint_c_examples status: missing_dependencies
• task: lint_c_benchmarks status: missing_dependencies
• task: lint_c_tests_fixtures status: na
• task: lint_shell status: na
• task: lint_typescript_declarations status: passed
• task: lint_typescript_tests status: passed
• task: lint_license_headers status: passed ---

Resolves stdlib-js/metr-issue-tracker#493.

Description

What is the purpose of this pull request?

This pull request:

• add blas/ext/base/zcartesian-square

Related Issues

Does this pull request have any related issues?

This pull request has the following related issues:

• Resolves [RFC]: add blas/ext/base/zcartesian-square metr-issue-tracker#493

Questions

Any questions for reviewers of this pull request?

No.

Other

Any other information relevant to this pull request? This may include screenshots, references, and/or implementation notes.

No.

Checklist

Please ensure the following tasks are completed before submitting this pull request.

• Read, understood, and followed the contributing guidelines.

AI Assistance

When authoring the changes proposed in this PR, did you use any kind of AI assistance?

• Yes
• No

If you answered "yes" above, how did you use AI assistance?

• Code generation (e.g., when writing an implementation or fixing a bug)
• Test/benchmark generation
• Documentation (including examples)
• Research and understanding

Disclosure

If you answered "yes" to using AI assistance, please provide a short disclosure indicating how you used AI assistance. This helps reviewers determine how much scrutiny to apply when reviewing your contribution. Example disclosures: "This PR was written primarily by Claude Code." or "I consulted ChatGPT to understand the codebase, but the proposed changes were fully authored manually by myself.".

Primarily written by Claude Code.

---

@stdlib-js/reviewers

[stdlib-bot]

Coverage Report

Package	Statements	Branches	Functions	Lines
blas/ext/base/zcartesian-square	$\\color{green}492/492$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}39/39$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}4/4$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$	$\\color{green}492/492$ $\\color{green}+0.00\\%$

The above coverage report was generated for the changes in this PR.

[kgryte]

@headlessNode Now that we've sorted out the other Cartesian square packages, would it make sense to go ahead and get this one over the finish line?

[headlessNode]

@kgryte Ready for review.

[kgryte]

Other the question regarding implementation performance for column-major in the JS implementation, this is looking good.

[kgryte]

/stdlib todo

[TODO]: Add lint support for enforcing header filename conventions

A package's primary header file and its include guard needs to match the package name, except for being in snakecase, rather than kebabcase.

We have this convention, it is so that end users have a consistent rule for how to convert a package name to a header include path. If packages are allowed to deviate from that convention, end users would need to explicitly look up the include path for each package they wanted to use, which just creates unnecessary friction.

We should both (a) document and (b) create a lint rule for enforcing filenames and potentially support separate linting for enforcing include guards (although this may be tied to us getting clang linting up and running).

When linting filenames, we'd need to distinguish between the main include and additional includes which are intended to be private. For the latter, these are allowed to have any name (e.g., see ndarray/base/unary). What should be the case is that if a package has an include folder, there should always be a header file having a path matching the package name, with the file basename being the base package name converted to snakecase. I cannot think of an exception to this rule. And if we ever needed to make an exception, we could consider, at some point in the future, adding an associated config option to a package's package.json which allows disabling the lint rule.

[stdlib-bot]

@kgryte, the following issue has been created: #13658

Please make any subsequent edits to the issue itself rather than by updating the todo comment.

[headlessNode]

@kgryte Fixed. Ran the benchmarks, came out in favor of manual loops + reinterpretation.

[headlessNode]

Btw for double and single-precision packages as well, the manual loops are faster.

[kgryte]

Btw for double and single-precision packages as well, the manual loops are faster.

For real-valued, this I would find surprising.

[kgryte]

Btw for double and single-precision packages as well, the manual loops are faster.

If you are running against the JS implementations of dfill and dcopy, these are effectively the same as manual loops, so perf should be within noise.

If you are running against the add-ons of dfill and dcopy, I am not surprised, at least for smaller array sizes, where crossing over from JS to C has perf overhead.

Regardless, for real-valued, calling into dfill and dcopy should lead to smaller bundle sizes (in the long run). For complex-valued, that trade-off is not as obvious due to the extra reinterpretation boilerplate.