On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 16:05 +0100, Daπid wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM, wrote:
>> > Why don't operations on empty arrays not return empty arrays?
>>
>> Because functions like mean or std are expected to return a scalar.
>> Fun
On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 16:05 +0100, Daπid wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM, wrote:
> > Why don't operations on empty arrays not return empty arrays?
>
> Because functions like mean or std are expected to return a scalar.
> Functions that are piecewiese can (and should) return an empty arr
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:54 PM, wrote:
> Why don't operations on empty arrays not return empty arrays?
Because functions like mean or std are expected to return a scalar.
Functions that are piecewiese can (and should) return an empty array,
but not the mean.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 22:58 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Dela
On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 22:58 -0500, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
> >> > Current behavior looks sensible to me. I per
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:58 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
>>> > Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no
>>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
>> > Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no
>> > warning
>> > but I think it makes sense to have on
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:45 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
> > Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no
> warning
> > but I think it makes sense to have one as it can be helpful to detect
> issues
> > faster.
>
> I agree that na
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
> Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no warning
> but I think it makes sense to have one as it can be helpful to detect issues
> faster.
I agree that nan should be the correct answer.
(I gave up trying to defi
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
> Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no
> warning but I think it makes sense to have one as it can be helpful to
> detect issues faster.
>
> -=- Olivier
>
It's configurable.
[~/]
[1]: np.seterr(all='ignore')
Hi Olivier,
Please don't top post, it isn't the custom on this list.
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote:
> Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no
> warning but I think it makes sense to have one as it can be helpful to
> detect issues faster.
>
Current behavior looks sensible to me. I personally would prefer no warning
but I think it makes sense to have one as it can be helpful to detect
issues faster.
-=- Olivier
2012/11/21 Charles R Harris
> What should be the value of the mean, var, and std of empty arrays?
> Currently
>
> In [12]:
What should be the value of the mean, var, and std of empty arrays?
Currently
In [12]: a
Out[12]: array([], dtype=int64)
In [13]: a.mean()
Out[13]: nan
In [14]: a.std()
Out[14]: nan
In [15]: a.var()
Out[15]: nan
I think the nan comes from 0/0. All of these also raise warnings the first
time th
13 matches
Mail list logo
