On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas < email@example.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing firstname.lastname@example.org 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 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 (both conceptually and programatically).
np.values() might be a decent alternative.
Cheers! Ben Root