So this petered off...any objections to np.full?

On 29 Jun 2013 05:03, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

> Hi all,

>

> It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle

> something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and

> 'np.filled_like':

> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875

> And there was a discussion about this on the list back in January:

> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/52763

>

> I think a reasonable summary of the opinions in the thread are:

> - This functionality is great, ...

> - ...but we can't call it 'np.filled' because there's also

> 'np.ma.filled' which does something else...

> - ...but there really aren't any better names...

> - ...so we should overload np.empty, like: 'np.empty(shape, fill=value)'

>

> In the mean time the original submitter has continued puttering along

> polishing the original patch, and it's ready to merge... except it's

> still the original interface, somehow the thread discussion and the PR

> discussion never met up.

>

> So, we have to decide what to do.

>

> Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will

> continue confusing newbies and everyone else indefinitely, and I'm

> 100% convinced that we'll regret implementing such a warty interface

> for something that should be so idiomatic. (Unfortunately I got busy

> and didn't actually say this in the previous thread though.) So I

> think we should just merge the PR as is. The only downside is the

> np.ma inconsistency, but, np.ma is already inconsistent (cf.

> masked_array.fill versus masked_array.filled!), somewhat deprecated,

> and AFAICT there are far more people who will benefit from a clean

> np.filled idiom than who actually use np.ma (and in particular its

> fill-value functionality). So there would be two

> bad-but-IMHO-acceptable options: either live with an inconsistency

> between np.filled and np.ma.filled, or deprecate np.ma.filled in favor

> of masked_array.filled (which does exactly the same thing) and

> eventually switch np.ma.filled to be consistent with the new

> np.filled.

>

> But, that's just my opinion.

>

> -n

> _______________________________________________

> NumPy-Discussion mailing list

> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Why we need this animal whatever it is called

Scientific Python @SciPyTip

Create a 2x3 array filled with integer 7's: 7*np.ones((2,3), int)

and I just did this yesterday, np.nan * np.ones(3)

maybe I should have used np.zeros(3) / 0.

Josef

_______________________________________________

NumPy-Discussion mailing list

NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org

http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion