Hi Martin, I agree it is a long-standing issue, and I was reminded of it by your comment. I have a draft PR at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/25476 that does not change the old behaviour, but allows you to pass in a start-stop array which behaves more sensibly (exact API TBD).
Please have a look! Marten Martin Ling <martin-nu...@earth.li> writes: > Hi folks, > > I don't follow numpy development in much detail these days but I see > that there is a 2.0 release planned soon. > > Would this be an opportunity to change the behaviour of 'reduceat'? > > This issue has been open in some form since 2006! > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/834 > > The current behaviour was originally inherited from Numeric, and makes > reduceat often unusable in practice, even where it should be the > perfect, concise, efficient solution. But it has been impossible to > change it without breaking compatibŃ–lity with existing code. > > As a result, horrible hacks are needed instead, e.g. my answer here: > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/57694003 > > Is this something that could finally be fixed in 2.0? > > > Martin > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org > To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ > Member address: m...@astro.utoronto.ca _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
