On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 5:41 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Tim Cera <t...@cerazone.net> wrote: > > If instead you passed in a function: > > > > def padwithzeros(vector, pad_width, iaxis, **kwargs): > > bvector = np.zeros(pad_width[0]) > > avector = np.zeros(pad_width[1]) > > return bvector, avector > > > > b = pad(padwithzeros, a, 2) > > > > Would that have some goodness? > > I like the idea, but this interface feels undercooked to me. What is > iaxis? (I couldn't figure that out from the docstrings in the pull > request either.) If padding a matrix, do we need a way to do padding > of all rows simultaneously? (Certainly that'd be just as easy for > something like padwithzeros, and would let us avoid a python-level for > loop.) Why is this function allocating new arrays that will just be > copied into the big array and then discarded, instead of filling in > the big array directly? (Again, this is a speed issue.) If it's > working with single rows at a time, then how will padwithconstant know > which constant to pull out of kwargs["constant_value"] when it's an > array? > > That's why I thought you might want to submit this as a second pull > request, rather than letting it hold up the whole thing. > > Would you suggest committing the current PR and then adding this interface later? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
