On Jan 29, 2008 5:48 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joris De Ridder wrote: > > On 30 Jan 2008, at 00:32, Travis E. Oliphant wrote: > > > > > >> Matthew Brett wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> > >>>>>>> median moved mediandim0 > >>>>>>> implementation of medianwithaxis or similar, with same call > >>>>>>> signature as mean. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>> But - for the median function change - do we agree that this should > >>> be > >>> changed? I think it is a significant wart in the numpy API, and has > >>> caught quite a few people... > >>> > >>> > >> I'm fine with a median API change for 1.1. > >> > >> We can add the axis keyword for 1.0.5 as long as the default stays the > >> same. We can also add the other keywords as well if appropriate > >> defaults can be determined. > >> > > > > Do you mean creating a median(a, axis=0) for 1.0.5, and changing it to > > median(a,axis=None) for 1.1? (Modulo other keywords). > > > > Yes. That is the approach I prefer. I'm all for fixing this, but the prospect of going straight from one default to another makes me nervous. Is there is any prospect we could spit out a warning when an axis is not specified for median starting in 1.05 up till 1.1. It could even be a PendingDeprecationWarning, which by default doesn't print anything I believe, but would allow people to check there code for potential failure points. -- . __ . |-\ . . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
