On 28 December 2011 03:33, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
2011/12/27 Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <jordigh@octave.org>
On 26 December 2011 14:56, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 26, 2011 at 8:50 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a hard time thinking through empty 2-dim arrays, and don't know what rules should apply. However, in my code I might want to catch these cases rather early than late and then having to work my way backwards to find out where the content disappeared.
Same here. Almost always, my empty arrays are either due to bugs or they signal that I do need to special-case something. Silent passing through of empty arrays to all numpy functions is not what I would want.
I find it quite annoying to treat the empty set with special deference. "All of my great-grandkids live in Antarctica" should be true for me (I'm only 30 years old). If you decide that is not true for me, it leads to a bunch of other logical annoyances up there
Guess you don't mean true/false, because it's neither. But I understand you want an empty array back instead of an error.
It should be true. This is a case of vacuous truth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth - Jordi G. H.