Hi, On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Pierre Haessig <pierre.haes...@crans.org> wrote: > Hi, > Le 17/01/2013 23:31, Matthew Brett a écrit : >>> 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. > Oh, that sounds very good to me. There is indeed a bit of contradictions > between "empty" and "fill" but maybe not that strong if we think of > "empty" as a "void of actual information". (Especially true when the > fill value is nan or inf, which, as Ben just mentionned are probably the > most commonly used fill value after zero.) > > Maybe a keyword named "value" instead of "fill" may help soften the > semantic opposition with "empty" ?
I personally find 'fill' OK. I'd read: a = np.empty((10, 10), fill=np.nan) as "make an empty array shape (10, 10) and fill with nans" Which would indeed be what the code was doing :) So I doubt that the semantic clash would cause any long term problems, Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
