On 2013/01/13 7:27 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > PR 2875 adds two new functions, that generalize zeros(), ones(), > zeros_like(), ones_like(), by simply taking an arbitrary fill value: > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 > So > np.ones((10, 10)) > is the same as > np.filled((10, 10), 1) > > The implementations are trivial, but the API seems useful because it > provides an idiomatic way of efficiently creating an array full of > inf, or nan, or None, whatever funny value you need. All the > alternatives are either inefficient (np.ones(...) * np.inf) or > cumbersome (a = np.empty(...); a.fill(...)). Or so it seems to me. But > there's a question of taste here; one could argue instead that these > just add more clutter to the numpy namespace. So, before we merge, > anyone want to chime in?
I'm neutral to negative as to whether it is worth adding these to the namespace; I don't mind using the "cumbersome" alternative. Note also that there is already a numpy.ma.filled() function for quite a different purpose, so putting a filled() in numpy breaks the pattern that ma has masked versions of most numpy functions. This consideration actually tips me quite a bit toward the negative side. I don't think I am unique in relying heavily on masked arrays. > > (Bonus, extra bike-sheddy survey: do people prefer > np.filled((10, 10), np.nan) > np.filled_like(my_arr, np.nan) +1 for this form if you decide to do it despite the problem mentioned above. > or > np.filled(np.nan, (10, 10)) > np.filled_like(np.nan, my_arr) This one is particularly bad for filled_like, therefore bad for both. Eric > ?) > > -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
