Hi Martin, I agree it is a long-standing issue, and I was reminded of it by your comment. I have a draft PR at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/25476 that does not change the old behaviour, but allows you to pass in a start-stop array which behaves more sensibly (exact API TBD). Please have a look! Marten Martin Ling <martin-numpy@earth.li> writes:
Hi folks,
I don't follow numpy development in much detail these days but I see that there is a 2.0 release planned soon.
Would this be an opportunity to change the behaviour of 'reduceat'?
This issue has been open in some form since 2006! https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/834
The current behaviour was originally inherited from Numeric, and makes reduceat often unusable in practice, even where it should be the perfect, concise, efficient solution. But it has been impossible to change it without breaking compatibŃ–lity with existing code.
As a result, horrible hacks are needed instead, e.g. my answer here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57694003
Is this something that could finally be fixed in 2.0?
Martin _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: mhvk@astro.utoronto.ca