efficent test for array with only one value?

David M. Cooke cookedm+news at physics.mcmaster.ca
Tue Jan 20 22:06:17 CET 2004

At some point, Kyler Laird <Kyler at news.Lairds.org> wrote:

> Robert Kern <rkern at ucsd.edu> writes:
>>However, alltrue(a.flat == a.flat[0]) will work but won't short-circuit. 
> How did I miss that?!  Yes, that's the kind of operation I sought.
> I'm surprised that it doesn't short-circuit.  It *should*, right?
> It's a shame that it only works along a single axis.  The use of
> "flat" is a problem for me.  I'm looking at sections of an image
> (building a quadtree) so the arrays I'm checking are not contiguous.
> I think that means I have to resort to something ugly like this.
> 	Numeric.alltrue(Numeric.alltrue(a == a[0,0]))
> That eliminates many opportunities for short-circuiting.
> I can also flatten the array using reshape() before checking it.  I
> assume that also means a lot of possibly unnecessary operations.
> (Does reshape() return a copy of the array or just an array with
> the original data and a new shape?)

In general, use ravel() instead of .flat.
ravel() is a simple wrapper around reshape(), which will make a
contiguous only if necessary. .flat will fail for non-contiguous arrays
(like views into another array).

|David M. Cooke

More information about the Python-list mailing list