On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote:
any objections to np.full?
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
Still curious: why isn't ``tile`` the right name? (It already exists.)
import numpy as np np.tile(3.0, (2,3))
array([[ 3., 3., 3.], [ 3., 3., 3.]])
If someone explained this, sorry to have missed it.
On 6/29/2013 5:25 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
It's implemented inefficiently.
It is aimed at a different use case (building up arrays from other arrays) that only incidentally, and thus poorly, fulfils this one.
It has no relation to the empty()/ones()/zeros() line of functions. In particular, tile_like() would make no sense.
Being aimed at a different use case, it will be more difficult to find for people who are not familiar with numpy's entire API. It will be an isolated idiom rather than a natural completion of the existing APIs.
I do not understand this reply.
1. efficiency: noted in my original post, and I believe it could easily be fixed. Am I wrong?
2. use case: I assume this is the efficiency argument in a new guise?
3. grammar: if there were an obvious choice, this discussion would have ceased long ago: ``tile`` is as good as any for this reason, and I don't see the problem with ``tile_like``.
4. isolated idiom (i.e., 3. again): the only way around this is to use ``constant``, which is in use in other languages. This has been vetoed as confusing terminology. The problems with each other suggestion have been covered extensively in this and related threads.
Honestly, I don't have a dog in this race. It just seems that ``tile`` already exists, is easily fixed to do what is wanted (or is this wrong?), and is tremendously easy to remember once seen.
Cheers, Alan Isaac