On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas <aldcroft@head.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing <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 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.

Ben Root