2013/1/17 Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com>: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> On 2013/01/17 4:13 AM, Pierre Haessig wrote: >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > Le 14/01/2013 20:05, Benjamin Root a écrit : >>>> >> I do like the way you are thinking in terms of the broadcasting >>>> >> semantics, but I wonder if that is a bit awkward. What I mean is, if >>>> >> one were to use broadcasting semantics for creating an array, wouldn't >>>> >> one have just simply used broadcasting anyway? The point of >>>> >> broadcasting is to _avoid_ the creation of unneeded arrays. But maybe >>>> >> I can be convinced with some examples. >>>> > >>>> > I feel that one of the point of the discussion is : although a new (or >>>> > not so new...) function to create a filled array would be more elegant >>>> > than the existing pair of functions "np.zeros" and "np.ones", there are >>>> > maybe not so many usecases for filled arrays *other than zeros values*. >>>> > >>>> > I can remember having initialized a non-zero array *some months ago*. >>>> > For the anecdote it was a vector of discretized vehicule speed values >>>> > which I wanted to be initialized with a predefined mean speed value >>>> > prior to some optimization. In that usecase, I really didn't care about >>>> > the performance of this initialization step. >>>> > >>>> > So my overall feeling after this thread is >>>> > - *yes* a single dedicated fill/init/someverb function would give a >>>> > slightly better API, >>>> > - but *no* it's not important because np.empty and np.zeros covers >>>> > 95 >>>> > % usecases ! >>>> >>>> I agree with your summary and conclusion. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>> >>> Can we at least have a np.nans() and np.infs() functions? This should >>> cover an additional 4% of use-cases. >>> >>> Ben Root >>> >>> P.S. - I know they aren't verbs... >> >> >> Would it be too weird or clumsy to extend the empty and empty_like functions >> to do the filling? >> >> np.empty((10, 10), fill=np.nan) >> np.empty_like(my_arr, fill=np.nan) > > That sounds like a good idea to me. Someone wanting a fast way to > fill an array will probably check out the 'empty' docstring first. > > See you, > > Matthew
+1 from me. Even though it *is* weird to have both "empty" and "fill" ;) -=- Olivier _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
