Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 7:11 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:15 AM, wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:15 AM, wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> >> >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 7:15 PM, wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smit

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> >> >> So this petered off...any objections to np.f

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

>> and I don't see the problem with ``tile_like``. On 6/29/2013 6:15 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > It makes no sense except in the scalar case. I would think it makes sense in every case that can be normally broadcast to the shape of the paradigm array. Anyway, I drop the suggestion. Cheers, Alan

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >>> >>> On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote: any objections to np.full? > > > >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >>> >>> Still curious: >>> why isn't ``tile`` the right name? >>> (It already exists.) > > >>> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

>> On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote: >>> any objections to np.full? > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> Still curious: >> why isn't ``tile`` the right name? >> (It already exists.) >> >>> import numpy as np >> >>> np.tile(3.0, (2,3)) >> array([[ 3., 3., 3.], >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > > On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote: > > any objections to np.full? > > Still curious: > why isn't ``tile`` the right name? > (It already exists.) > > >>> import numpy as np > >>> np.tile(3.0, (2,3)) > array([[ 3., 3., 3.], > [

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 6/29/2013 3:00 PM, Nathaniel wrote: > any objections to np.full? Still curious: why isn't ``tile`` the right name? (It already exists.) >>> import numpy as np >>> np.tile(3.0, (2,3)) array([[ 3., 3., 3.], [ 3., 3., 3.]]) If someone explained this, sorry to have missed it. Alan

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM, wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> So this petered off...any objections to np.full? > No objection. > > How about `np.inited` ? `full` doesn't sou

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> So this petered off...any objections to np.full? > > > How about `np.inited` ? `full` doesn't sound quite right to me. Although I > expect once it comes into use everyone

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 4:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > So this petered off...any objections to np.full? > How about `np.inited` ? `full` doesn't sound quite right to me. Although I expect once it comes into use everyone will get used to it. Chuck __

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> So this petered off...any objections to np.full? > > full and filledwith and filled_with all seem OK to me. same here, filled_with_like might have too many underlines. > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

Hi, On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > So this petered off...any objections to np.full? full and filledwith and filled_with all seem OK to me. On a meta note - anything we can do to stop threads petering off? It seems to happen rather often, Cheers, Matthew __

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

So this petered off...any objections to np.full? On 29 Jun 2013 05:03, wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle > > something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and > > 'np.fill

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle > something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and > 'np.filled_like': > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 > And there was a discussion about th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Eric Firing wrote: >> > On 2013/06/12 2:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> Despite heroic efforts on the part of its authors, numpy.ma has a >> num

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > > On 2013/06/12 2:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will > >> continue confusing newbies and everyone else indefinitely,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

> On 2013/06/14 5:15 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> But more important than the name I think >> is allowing broadcasting of the values, >> based on NumPy's broadcasting rules. >> Broadcasting a scalar is then a special case, >> even if it is the case that has dominated this thread. On 6/14/2013 1:18

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:21 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > > On 2013/06/14 5:15 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > >> On 6/14/2013 9:27 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas wrote: > >>> If I just saw np.values(..) in some code I would never guess what it > is doing from t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 2013/06/12 2:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith 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 w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 2013/06/14 5:15 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> On 6/14/2013 9:27 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas wrote: >>> If I just saw np.values(..) in some code I would never guess what it is >>> doing from the name >> >> That suggests np.fromvalues. >> But more impo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 2013/06/14 5:15 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 6/14/2013 9:27 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas wrote: >> If I just saw np.values(..) in some code I would never guess what it is >> doing from the name > > That suggests np.fromvalues. > But more important than the name I think > is allowing broadcasting of the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Phil Hodge wrote: > I would interpret np.filled as a test, asking whether the array is > filled. If the function is supposed to do something related to > assigning values, the name should be a verb. That's a plausible convention, but it's not the convention that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 6/14/2013 9:27 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas wrote: > If I just saw np.values(..) in some code I would never guess what it is doing > from the name That suggests np.fromvalues. But more important than the name I think is allowing broadcasting of the values, based on NumPy's broadcasting rules. Broadcas

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > > On 2013/06/13 10:36 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas > >> mailto:aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 2013/06/13 10:36 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas >> mailto:aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu>> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 6/13/2013 4:36 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > np.values() might be a decent alternative. This could then reasonably support broadcasting from the shape of the input to the shape of the array. Alan Isaac ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussio

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 2013/06/13 10:36 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas > mailto:aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu>> > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing > wrote: > > On 2013/06/12 8:13 AM, Warren Weckesse

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas < aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > >> On 2013/06/12 8:13 AM, Warren Weckesser wrote: >> > That's why I suggested 'filledwith' (add the underscore if you like). >> > This also allow

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 2013/06/12 8:13 AM, Warren Weckesser wrote: > > That's why I suggested 'filledwith' (add the underscore if you like). > > This also allows a corresponding masked implementation, 'ma.filledwith', > > without clobbering the existing 'ma.fille

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Phil Hodge wrote: > On 06/12/2013 02:55 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > I would interpret np.filled as a test, asking whether the array is > filled. If the function is supposed to do something related to > assigning values, the name should be a verb. or a noun: ones,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 06/12/2013 02:55 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > Consensus on np.filled? absolutely not, you do not have a consensus. I would interpret np.filled as a test, asking whether the array is filled. If the function is supposed to do something related to assigning values, the name should be a verb. Phil

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 2013/06/12 8:13 AM, Warren Weckesser wrote: > That's why I suggested 'filledwith' (add the underscore if you like). > This also allows a corresponding masked implementation, 'ma.filledwith', > without clobbering the existing 'ma.filled'. Consensus on np.filled? absolutely not, you do not have a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:49 AM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 2013/06/12 4:18 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> Now imagine a different new version of this page, if we overload >> 'empty' to add a fill= option. I don't even know how we document that >> on this page. The list will remain: >>empty >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

Hi, On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:49 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 2013/06/12 4:18 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> Now imagine a different new version of this page, if we overload >> 'empty' to add a fill= option. I don't even know how we document that >> on this page. The list will remain: >>empty >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 2013/06/12 4:18 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Now imagine a different new version of this page, if we overload > 'empty' to add a fill= option. I don't even know how we document that > on this page. The list will remain: >empty >ones >zeros Opposite of "empty": "full". So that is an

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 2013/06/12 2:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle > something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and > 'np.filled_like': >https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 > And there was a discussion about this on the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On 12 Jun 2013 18:20, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < > chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 12 Jun 2013 18:20, "Ralf Gommers" wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> > Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will >> > continu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will > > continue confusing newbies and everyone else indefinitely, and I'm >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On June 12, 2013 at 17:56:33, Daπid (davidmen...@gmail.com) wrote: On 12 June 2013 17:29, wrote: > +2 on this. > I like a good name like `filled` for a function that I expect to use regularly. > it's short and descriptive. FTIW, I am for this one too. That is not only clear, but a name that one ma

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 12 June 2013 17:29, wrote: > +2 on this. > I like a good name like `filled` for a function that I expect to use > regularly. > it's short and descriptive. FTIW, I am for this one too. That is not only clear, but a name that one may try even before checking the docs. Emtpy-filled sounds too

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will > >> continue confusing newbies and everyone el

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 6/12/2013 10:49 AM, Pierre Haessig wrote: >> I find the "docs would look nice and consistent" argument pretty convincing. >> +1 for np.filled. > > In Maple and Mathematica, these are called constant arrays. > Thus (?) another possible name

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

> Le 12/06/2013 16:18, Nathaniel Smith a écrit : >> Now imagine a new version of this page, if we add 'filled'. There will >> be a list at the top with functions named: >>empty >>filled >>ones >>zeros >> It's immediately obvious what all of these things do, and how they >> differ fr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Warren Weckesser wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> Personally I think that overloading np.emp

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

Hi, Le 12/06/2013 16:18, Nathaniel Smith a écrit : > Now imagine a new version of this page, if we add 'filled'. There will > be a list at the top with functions named: > empty > filled > ones > zeros > It's immediately obvious what all of these things do, and how they > differ from each o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:18 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Personally I think that overloading np.empty is horribly ugly, will > >> continue confusing newbies and everyone el

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith 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 implemen

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: > On 12/06/2013 14:29, Robert Kern wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: >> >>> There where the additional proposal (mostly neglected on the original >>> thread) to add the 'fill' optional parameter to the array

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: > On 12/06/2013 14:29, Robert Kern wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: >> >>> There where the additional proposal (mostly neglected on the original >>> thread) to add the 'fill' optional parameter to the array

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 12/06/2013 14:29, Robert Kern wrote: > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: > >> There where the additional proposal (mostly neglected on the original >> thread) to add the 'fill' optional parameter to the array constructor: >> >> np.ndarray(shape, fill=value) >> >> has an

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

--Pierre GMSent with AirmailOn June 12, 2013 at 14:10:27, Nathaniel Smith (n...@pobox.com) wrote: Hi all, It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and 'np.filled_like': https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 And there

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Daniele Nicolodi wrote: > There where the additional proposal (mostly neglected on the original > thread) to add the 'fill' optional parameter to the array constructor: > > np.ndarray(shape, fill=value) > > has an obvious meaning to me. > > I also don't really see

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

Hi, On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi all, > > It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle > something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and > 'np.filled_like': > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 > And there was a discussion abo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

On 12/06/2013 14:10, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle > something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and > 'np.filled_like': > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 > And there was a discussion about this on the list back in Ja

[Numpy-discussion] numpy.filled, again

Hi all, It looks like we've gotten a bit confused and need to untangle something. There's a PR to add new functions 'np.filled' and 'np.filled_like': https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2875 And there was a discussion about this on the list back in January: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.p