> But I would have expected these to raise ValueErrors recommending any()
and all():
> >>> bool(np.array([1]))
> True
> >>> bool(np.array([0]))
> False
While I can't confess to know the *actual* reason why single-element arrays
evaluate the way they do, this is how I understand it:
One thing that single-element arrays have going for them is that, for
arrays like this, `x.any() == x.all()`. Hence, in these cases, there is no
ambiguity.
In this same light, we can see yet another argument against
bool(np.array([])), because guess what: This one IS ambiguous!
>>> np.array([]).any()
False
>>> np.array([]).all()
True
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Paul Hobson <pmhob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something.
>
> This seems fine to me:
> >>> bool(np.array([]))
> False
>
> But I would have expected these to raise ValueErrors recommending any()
> and all():
> >>> bool(np.array([1]))
> True
> >>> bool(np.array([0]))
> False
>
> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree, this behavior seems actively harmful. Let's fix it.
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Michael Lamparski <
>> diagonaldev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings, all. I am troubled.
>>>
>>> The TL;DR is that `bool(array([])) is False` is misleading, dangerous,
>>> and unnecessary. Let's begin with some examples:
>>>
>>> >>> bool(np.array(1))
>>> True
>>> >>> bool(np.array(0))
>>> False
>>> >>> bool(np.array([0, 1]))
>>> ValueError: The truth value of an array with more than one element is
>>> ambiguous. Use a.any() or a.all()
>>> >>> bool(np.array([1]))
>>> True
>>> >>> bool(np.array([0]))
>>> False
>>> >>> bool(np.array([]))
>>> False
>>>
>>> One of these things is not like the other.
>>>
>>> The first three results embody a design that is consistent with some of
>>> the most fundamental design choices in numpy, such as the choice to have
>>> comparison operators like `==` work elementwise. And it is the only such
>>> design I can think of that is consistent in all edge cases. (see footnote 1)
>>>
>>> The next two examples (involving arrays of shape (1,)) are a
>>> straightforward extension of the design to arrays that are isomorphic to
>>> scalars. I can't say I recall ever finding a use for this feature... but
>>> it seems fairly harmless.
>>>
>>> So how about that last example, with array([])? Well... it's /kind of/
>>> like how other python containers work, right? Falseness is emptiness (see
>>> footnote 2)... Except that this is actually *a complete lie*, due to /all
>>> of the other examples above/!
>>>
>>> Here's what I would like to see:
>>>
>>> >>> bool(np.array([]))
>>> ValueError: The truth value of a non-scalar array is ambiguous. Use
>>> a.any() or a.all()
>>>
>>> Why do I care? Well, I myself wasted an hour barking up the wrong tree
>>> while debugging some code when it turned out that I was mistakenly using
>>> truthiness to identify empty arrays. It just so happened that the arrays
>>> always contained 1 or 0 elements, so it /appeared/ to work except in the
>>> rare case of array([0]) where things suddenly exploded.
>>>
>>> I posit that there is no usage of the fact that `bool(array([])) is
>>> False` in any real-world code which is not accompanied by a horrible bug
>>> writhing in hiding just beneath the surface. For this reason, I wish to see
>>> this behavior *abolished*.
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>> Footnotes:
>>> 1: Every now and then, I wish that `ndarray.__{bool,nonzero}__` would
>>> just implicitly do `all()`, which would make `if a == b:` work like it does
>>> for virtually every other reasonably-designed type in existence. But then
>>> I recall that, if this were done, then the behavior of `if a != b:` would
>>> stand out like a sore thumb instead. Truly, punting on 'any/all' was the
>>> right choice.
>>>
>>> 2: np.array([[[[]]]]) is also False, which makes this an interesting
>>> sort of n-dimensional emptiness test; but if that's really what you're
>>> looking for, you can achieve this much more safely with `np.all(x.shape)`
>>> or `bool(x.flat)`
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
>>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
