On 2013/01/17 4:13 AM, Pierre Haessig wrote: > Hi, > > Le 14/01/2013 20:05, Benjamin Root a écrit : >> I do like the way you are thinking in terms of the broadcasting >> semantics, but I wonder if that is a bit awkward. What I mean is, if >> one were to use broadcasting semantics for creating an array, wouldn't >> one have just simply used broadcasting anyway? The point of >> broadcasting is to _avoid_ the creation of unneeded arrays. But maybe >> I can be convinced with some examples. > > I feel that one of the point of the discussion is : although a new (or > not so new...) function to create a filled array would be more elegant > than the existing pair of functions "np.zeros" and "np.ones", there are > maybe not so many usecases for filled arrays *other than zeros values*. > > I can remember having initialized a non-zero array *some months ago*. > For the anecdote it was a vector of discretized vehicule speed values > which I wanted to be initialized with a predefined mean speed value > prior to some optimization. In that usecase, I really didn't care about > the performance of this initialization step. > > So my overall feeling after this thread is > - *yes* a single dedicated fill/init/someverb function would give a > slightly better API, > - but *no* it's not important because np.empty and np.zeros covers 95 > % usecases !
I agree with your summary and conclusion. Eric > > best, > Pierre > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
