On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> On 2013/06/13 10:36 AM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas
>> <aldcroft@head.cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:aldcroft@head.cfa.harvard.edu>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@hawaii.edu
>>     <mailto:efiring@hawaii.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 2013/06/12 8:13 AM, Warren Weckesser wrote:
>>          > That's why I suggested 'filledwith' (add the underscore if
>>         you like).
>>          > This also allows a corresponding masked implementation,
>>         'ma.filledwith',
>>          > without clobbering the existing 'ma.filled'.
>>
>>         Consensus on np.filled? absolutely not, you do not have a consensus.
>>
>>         np.filledwith or filled_with: fine with me, maybe even with
>>         everyone--let's see.  I would prefer the underscore version.
>>
>>
>>     +1 on np.filled_with.  It's unique the meaning is extremely obvious.
>>       We do use np.ma.filled in astropy so a big -1 on deprecating that
>>     (which would then require doing numpy version checks to get the
>>     right method).  Even when there is an NA dtype the numpy.ma
>>     <http://numpy.ma> users won't go away anytime soon.
>>
>>
>> I like np.filled_with(), but just to be devil's advocate, think of the
>> syntax:
>>
>> np.filled_with((10, 24), np.nan)
>>
>> As I read that, I am filling the array with (10, 24), not NaNs.  Minor
>> issue, for sure, but just thought I raise that.
>>
>> -1 on deprecation of np.ma.filled().  -1 on np.filled() due to collision
>> with np.ma <http://np.ma> (both conceptually and programatically).
>>
>> np.values() might be a decent alternative.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Ben Root
>
> Even if he is representing the devil, Ben raises a good point.  To
> summarize, the most recent set of suggestions that seem not to have been
> completely shot down include:
>
> np.filled_with((10, 24), np.nan)
> np.full((10, 24), np.nan)          # analogous to np.empty
> np.values((10, 24), np.nan)        # seems clear, concise
> np.initialized((10, 24), np.nan)   # a few more characters, but
>                                     #  seems clear to me.
>
> Personally, I like all of the last three better than the first.

What about:

  np.filled_array((10, 24), np.nan) 

If I just saw np.values(..) in some code I would never guess what it is doing from the name, and beyond that I would guess that I can put in multiple "values" in the second arg.  np.initialized() is more obvious to me.

- Tom

np.values
sounds also good to me, a noun like np.ones, np.nans, np.infs, np.zeros

I don't like np.initialized because empty also initializes and array
(although) an empty one.

Josef

>
> Eric
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion