On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 20:09, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 18:50, wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> >> is np.size the right chec
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 20:09, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 18:50, wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
>>
>> >> is np.size the right check for non-empty array, including subtypes?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> >>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 18:50, wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
>
> >> is np.size the right check for non-empty array, including subtypes?
>
> Yes.
>
> >> i.e.
> >>
> >> if y.size and mask.all():
> >>return np.nan
>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 18:50, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
>> is np.size the right check for non-empty array, including subtypes?
Yes.
>> i.e.
>>
>> if y.size and mask.all():
>> return np.nan
>>
>> or more explicit
>> if y.size > 0 and mask.all():
>> return n
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 15:31, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:50 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 15:31, wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 6/1/2009 3:38 PM josef.p...@gmail.com apparently w
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:43 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 15:31, wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
On 6/1/2009 3:38 PM josef.p...@gmail.com apparently wrote:
> Here's a good one:
>
n
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 15:31, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2009 3:38 PM josef.p...@gmail.com apparently wrote:
Here's a good one:
>>> np.isnan([]).all()
True
>>> np.isnan([]).
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 15:31, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
>> On 6/1/2009 3:38 PM josef.p...@gmail.com apparently wrote:
>>> Here's a good one:
>>>
>> np.isnan([]).all()
>>> True
>> np.isnan([]).any()
>>> False
>>
>>
>> >>> all([])
>> True
>> >>> any([])
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On 6/1/2009 3:38 PM josef.p...@gmail.com apparently wrote:
>> Here's a good one:
>>
> np.isnan([]).all()
>> True
> np.isnan([]).any()
>> False
>
>
> >>> all([])
> True
> >>> any([])
> False
also:
>>> y
array([], dtype=float64)
>>> (
On 6/1/2009 3:38 PM josef.p...@gmail.com apparently wrote:
> Here's a good one:
>
np.isnan([]).all()
> True
np.isnan([]).any()
> False
>>> all([])
True
>>> any([])
False
Cheers,
Alan Isaac
___
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussio
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, M
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:34 AM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Hearne wrote:
> A question (and possibly a bug):
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Hearne wrote:
A question (and possibly a bug):
What should be returned when I do:
>>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 11:16 AM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Hearne wrote:
>>> A question (and possibly a bug):
>>>
>>> What should be returned when I do:
>>>
>>> numpy.nansum([])
>>>
>>> In my copy of numpy 1.1.1, I g
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Hearne wrote:
>> A question (and possibly a bug):
>>
>> What should be returned when I do:
>>
>> numpy.nansum([])
>>
>> In my copy of numpy 1.1.1, I get 0.0. This is what I would expect to
>> see.
>> H
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Michael Hearne wrote:
> A question (and possibly a bug):
>
> What should be returned when I do:
>
> numpy.nansum([])
>
> In my copy of numpy 1.1.1, I get 0.0. This is what I would expect to
> see.
> However, this behavior seems to have changed in 1.3.0, in which I
A question (and possibly a bug):
What should be returned when I do:
numpy.nansum([])
In my copy of numpy 1.1.1, I get 0.0. This is what I would expect to
see.
However, this behavior seems to have changed in 1.3.0, in which I get
nan.
Thanks,
Mike
__
18 matches
Mail list logo
