Re: [Numpy-discussion] Boolean binary '-' operator
My two ¢: keep things as they are. There is just two much code that uses the C definition of bools, 0=False, 1=True. Coupled with casting every outcome that is unequal to 0 as True, * as AND, + as OR, and - as XOR makes sense (and -True would indeed be True, but I'm quite happy to have that one removed...). I lost track a little, but isn't this way also consistent with python, the one difference being that numpy does an implicit cast to bool on the result? -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Boolean binary '-' operator
Just as a comment: It would be really nice if NumPy could slow down the pace of deprecations, or at least make the warnings about deprecations more visible. It seems like every release breaks some subset of our test suite (we only had one or two cases of using the binary - operator on boolean arrays so it wasn't a big deal this time). For projects that don't have resources for ongoing maintenance this is a recipe for bitrot... On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > My two ¢: keep things as they are. There is just two much code that > uses the C definition of bools, 0=False, 1=True. Coupled with casting > every outcome that is unequal to 0 as True, * as AND, + as OR, and - > as XOR makes sense (and -True would indeed be True, but I'm quite > happy to have that one removed...). > > I lost track a little, but isn't this way also consistent with python, > the one difference being that numpy does an implicit cast to bool on > the result? > > -- Marten > ___ > 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
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Boolean binary '-' operator
About visibility of deprecations: this is *very* tricky - if we make it more visible, every user is going to see deprecation warnings all the time, about things they can do nothing about, because they occur inside other packages. I think in the end the only choice is to have automated testing that turns warnings into errors, so that these warnings are caught early enough. That said, I've certainly taken note of this as an example of the importance of not changing things just because the current implementation is not quite logical; there should be a real benefit to the change. That said, in fairness, I'd argue at least a few of the deprecation warnings are the result of dealing with bit-rot within numpy! -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Boolean binary '-' operator
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > My two ¢: keep things as they are. There is just two much code that > uses the C definition of bools, 0=False, 1=True. Coupled with casting > every outcome that is unequal to 0 as True, * as AND, + as OR, and - > as XOR makes sense (and -True would indeed be True, but I'm quite > happy to have that one removed...). > I'm also in favor of practicality beats mathematical purity. AFAIK, the hybrid behavior between boolean and the diff/sum/dot behavior works pretty well when working, e.g., with masks, as for example in masked array stats. Josef > > I lost track a little, but isn't this way also consistent with python, > the one difference being that numpy does an implicit cast to bool on > the result? > > -- Marten > ___ > 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
