[Numpy-discussion] What should be the result in some statistics corner cases?
ben.root at ou.edu
Mon Jul 15 20:58:48 EDT 2013
To add a bit of context to the question of nansum on empty results, we
currently differ from MATLAB and R in this respect, they return zero no
matter what. Personally, I think it should return zero, but our current
behavior of returning nans has existed for a long time.
Personally, I think we need a deprecation warning and possibly wait to
change this until 2.0, with plenty of warning that this will change.
On Jul 15, 2013 8:46 PM, "Charles R Harris" <charlesr.harris at gmail.com>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan at sun.ac.za>wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:33:47 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Benjamin Root <ben.root at ou.edu> wrote:
>> > > This is going to need to be heavily documented with doctests. Also,
>> > > to clarify, are we talking about a ValueError for doing a nansum on an
>> > > empty array as well, or will that now return a zero?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > I was going to leave nansum as is, as it seems that the result was by
>> > choice rather than by accident.
>> That makes sense--I like Sebastian's explanation whereby operations that
>> define an identity yields that upon empty input.
> So nansum should return zeros rather than the current NaNs?
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion