On Jan 29, 2008 5:48 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
Joris De Ridder wrote:
On 30 Jan 2008, at 00:32, Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
>> median moved mediandim0 >> implementation of medianwithaxis or similar, with same call >> signature as mean. >> >> But - for the median function change - do we agree that this should be changed? I think it is a significant wart in the numpy API, and has caught quite a few people...
I'm fine with a median API change for 1.1.
We can add the axis keyword for 1.0.5 as long as the default stays the same. We can also add the other keywords as well if appropriate defaults can be determined.
Do you mean creating a median(a, axis=0) for 1.0.5, and changing it to median(a,axis=None) for 1.1? (Modulo other keywords).
Yes. That is the approach I prefer.
I'm all for fixing this, but the prospect of going straight from one default to another makes me nervous. Is there is any prospect we could spit out a warning when an axis is not specified for median starting in 1.05 up till 1.1. It could even be a PendingDeprecationWarning, which by default doesn't print anything I believe, but would allow people to check there code for potential failure points. -- . __ . |-\ . . tim.hochberg@ieee.org