On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:08, Skipper Seabold <jsseab...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Alan G Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Mark Miller<markperrymil...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Not quite. Bincount is fine if you have a set of approximately >>>>> sequential numbers. But if you don't.... >>> >>> >>> On 6/1/2011 9:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >>>> Even worse, it fails miserably if you sequential numbers but with a high >>>> shift. >>>> np.bincount([100000001, 100000002]) # will take a lof of memory >>>> Doing bincount with dict is faster in those cases. >>> >>> >>> Since this discussion has turned shortcomings of bincount, >>> may I ask why np.bincount([]) is not an empty array? >>> Even more puzzling, why is np.bincount([],minlength=6) >>> not a 6-array of zeros? >>> >> >> Just looks like it wasn't coded that way, but it's low-hanging fruit. >> Any objections to adding this behavior? This commit should take care >> of it. Tests pass. Comments welcome, as I'm just getting my feet wet >> here. >> >> https://github.com/jseabold/numpy/commit/133148880bba5fa3a11dfbb95cefb3da4f7970d5 > > I would use np.zeros(5, dtype=int) in test_empty_with_minlength(), but > otherwise, it looks good. >
Ok, thanks. Made the change and removed the old test that it fails on empty. Pull request. https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/84 Skipper _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion