On 24. feb. 2013, at 02:20, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Till Stensitzki <mail.t...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> i know that the array object is already crowded, but i would like >>>> to see the abs method added, especially doing work on the console. >>>> Considering that many much less used functions are also implemented >>>> as a method, i don't think adding one more would be problematic. >>> >>> My gut feeling is that we have too many methods on ndarray, not too >>> few, but in any case, can you elaborate? What's the rationale for why >>> np.abs(a) is so much harder than a.abs(), and why this function and >>> not other unary functions? >> >> Or even abs(a). > > > my reason is that I often use > > arr.max() > but then decide I want to us abs and need > np.max(np.abs(arr)) > instead of arr.abs().max() (and often I write that first to see the > error message) > > I don't like > np.abs(arr).max() > because I have to concentrate to much on the braces, especially if arr > is a calculation > > I wrote several times > def maxabs(arr): > return np.max(np.abs(arr)) > > silly, but I use it often and np.is_close is not useful (doesn't show how > close) > > Just a small annoyance, but I think it's the method that I miss most often. > > Josef
Very well put. I wholeheartedly agree. I'd be sort of happy with all functions becoming np.xxx() in numpy 2.0, for consistency. Paul _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
