On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On 12 Jun 2013 18:20, "Ralf Gommers" <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < > chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> > >> > Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will > >> > continue confusing newbies and everyone else indefinitely, and I'm > >> > 100% convinced that we'll regret implementing such a warty interface > >> > for something that should be so idiomatic. > > > > > > I agree. > > Sounds like we're pretty much reaching consensus. Phew. > > >> > >> ... > >> deprecate np.ma.filled > > > > > > Please don't. Rather just live with the inconsistency between numpy and > numpy.ma APIs. If that bothers you, just tell yourself that we'll get an > NA dtype at some point and that that will make numpy.ma much less > important:) > > Oh, I do tell myself that :-). With my committer/consensus-building hat > on, np.ma has users, so I want something they can live with, and was > suggesting some options. For myself I don't really care what np.ma does > though since I don't use it... > > >> in favor > >> > of masked_array.filled (which does exactly the same thing) and > >> > eventually switch np.ma.filled to be consistent with the new > >> > np.filled. > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> > I also don't really see why an np.empty() constructor exists, it seems > >> > to do the same thing that np.ndarray() does. > >> > >> I had always assumed that np.ndarray() was a "low-level" interce that > >> you really don't want to use in regular code (maybe for subclassing > >> array...), as the docs say: > >> > >> """ > >> Arrays should be constructed using `array`, `zeros` or `empty` (refer > >> to the See Also section below). The parameters given here refer to > >> a low-level method (`ndarray(...)`) for instantiating an array. > >> """ > >> > >> Am I wrong? is there any reason )other than history to have np.empty() > >> > >> But in any case, I like np.filled(), as being analogous to ones(), > >> zeros() and empty()... > > > > > > I like np.filled as well. np.fill_with sounds fine too. > > Grammatically, fill_with is an imperative, which suggests it needs an > array to operate on; it's synonymous with just plain 'fill'. Having 'fill' > and 'fill_with' as different functions with different semantics would be > pretty confusing! > > That's why I suggested 'filledwith' (add the underscore if you like). This also allows a corresponding masked implementation, 'ma.filledwith', without clobbering the existing 'ma.filled'. Warren -n > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion