> I think the consistency between bool([]) and
bool(array([])) is worth preserving
I'm with Eric Firing on this one. Empty sequences are False in Python.
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listin
Andrew, that can only be useful if you also require that all non-empty
arrays are True - else code looking for empty arrays gets false positives
on arrays of zeros.
But as I mention above, that is not acceptable, as it produces silent traps
for new users, or functions not written with numpy in min
Michael Lamparski kirjoitti 19.08.2017 klo 07:04:
>> I'd be tentatively in favor of deprecating bool(array([1]) with a
> warning asking for `.squeeze()` to be used, since this also hides a
> (smaller) class of bugs.
>
> I can get behind this as well, though I just keep wondering in the back
> of m
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 9:22 AM, Pauli Virtanen wrote:
> While the intention of making it harder to write code with bugs
> is good, it should not come at the cost of having everyone fix
> their old scripts, which worked correctly previously, but then
> suddenly stop working.
This is a good point.
On 2017/08/19 7:18 AM, Michael Lamparski wrote:
While there's no way to really reach out to the silent majority, I am
going to at least make a github issue and summarize the points from this
discussion there. I'm glad to see that the general response so far has
been that this seems actionable
On Sat, Aug 19, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 2017/08/19 7:18 AM, Michael Lamparski wrote:
>
>> While there's no way to really reach out to the silent majority, I am
>> going to at least make a github issue and summarize the points from this
>> discussion there. I'm glad to see that t
On 2017/08/19 10:26 AM, Michael Lamparski wrote:
There will be opportunity for others to do the same on Github. Please; I
live for discussions about pitfalls in language and library design!
Thank you for your thoughtful discussion.
Eric
___
NumPy-Di
On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> I don't agree. I think the consistency between bool([]) and bool(array([]))
> is worth preserving. Nothing you have shown is inconsistent with "Falseness
> is emptiness", which is quite fundamental in Python. The inconsistency is
> in distin
Agreed with Eric Wieser here have an empty array test as `False` is
less than useless, since a non-empty array either returns something
based on its contents or an error. This means that one cannot write
statements like `if array:`. Does this leave any use case? It seems to
me it just shows there i
