On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will > continue confusing newbies and everyone else indefinitely, and I'm > 100% convinced that we'll regret implementing such a warty interface > for something that should be so idiomatic. ... deprecate np.ma.filled in favor > of masked_array.filled (which does exactly the same thing) and > eventually switch np.ma.filled to be consistent with the new > np.filled. +1 > I also don't really see why an np.empty() constructor exists, it seems > to do the same thing that np.ndarray() does. I had always assumed that np.ndarray() was a "low-level" interce that you really don't want to use in regular code (maybe for subclassing array...), as the docs say: """ Arrays should be constructed using `array`, `zeros` or `empty` (refer to the See Also section below). The parameters given here refer to a low-level method (`ndarray(...)`) for instantiating an array. """ Am I wrong? is there any reason )other than history to have np.empty() But in any case, I like np.filled(), as being analogous to ones(), zeros() and empty()... -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [email protected] _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
