nitpicking the name: i find "slice" to be kind of ambiguous between a verb and a noun, and it also locks us in to returning slice objects, so what if we use the word"region" instead?

and also I think it's helpful if the name of this routine makes it clear that it's an iterator. So what if we call ititer_chunk_regions, i.e. the name of the routine it wraps 😜

re. name, I think "slices" is unambiguously a noun because it's plural? I looked at NumPy (https://numpy.org/doc/stable/user/basics.indexing.html#slicing-and-striding), and they use the terms "index", "selection tuple", or "slicing tuple". If we try and stay consistent with NumPy, how about "chunk_indices"?

I like "regions", but to me it's ambiguous whether that means the index, or the array data at that index. If we settle on it that could be fixed by documentation and consistent use though.

re. iterator, do you mean generator? A list/string etc. are also iterators, but using ayield makes this into more specifically a generator.

So perhapsgenerate_chunk_indices? I find that a bit clunky though,

forchunk_indexinarr.chunk_indices:

is much nicer than

forchunk_indexinarr.generate_chunk_indices:

(oriter_chunk_indices)

which is why I prefer simplychunk_indices. I don't knkow if there's prior art in other libraries for naming generators?

generatorsare iterators, and my thinking was that putting "iter" in the name conveys that users should expect toiterate over the value returned by calling this method.

when I think of iterating over indices, I think of iterating over tuples of coordinates, e.g.,(0, 0, 0),(0, 0, 1), .... which is what_iter_chunk_coords /_iter_shard_coords do right now.

I like "regions", but to me it's ambiguous whether that means the index, or the array data at that index. If we settle on it that could be fixed by documentation and consistent use though.

I worry that this ambiguity will hold for any name we pick :)