Travis Oliphant wrote:
Sebastian Haase wrote:
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 18:37, Travis Oliphant wrote:
David M. Cooke wrote:
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:22:52 -0700
Sebastian Haase <haase@msg.ucsf.edu> wrote:
On Wednesday 23 August 2006 16:12, Bill Baxter wrote:
The thing that I find I keep forgetting is that abs() is a built-in, but other simple functions are not. So it's abs(foo), but numpy.floor(foo) and numpy.ceil(foo). And then there's round() which is a built-in but can't be used with arrays, so numpy.round_(foo). Seems like it would be more consistent to just add a numpy.abs() and numpy.round().
Regarding the original subject: a) "absolute" is impractically too much typing and b) I just thought some (module-) functions might be "forgotten" to be put in as (object-) methods ... !?
Four-line change, so I added a.abs() (three lines for array, one for MaskedArray).
While I appreciate it's proactive nature, I don't like this change because it adds another "ufunc" as a method. Right now, I think conj is the only other method like that.
Instead, I like better the idea of adding abs, round, max, and min to the "non-import-*" namespace of numpy.
How does this compare with mean, min, max, average ?
I'm not sure what this question is asking, so I'll answer what I think it is asking.
The mean, min, max, and average functions are *not* ufuncs. They are methods of particular ufuncs.
Yes - that's what wanted to hear ! I'm just trying to bring in the "user's" point of view: Not thinking about how they are implemented under the hood: mean,min,max,average have a very similar "feeling" to them as "abs". I'm hoping this ("seeing things from the user p.o.v.") can stay like that for as long as possible ! Numpy should be focused on "scientist not programers". (This is just why I posted this comment about "arr.abs()" - but if there is a good reason to not have this for "simplicity reasons 'under the hood'" I can see that perfectly fine !) - Sebastian