2008/4/18, Olivier Verdier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I certainly didn't mean that "A==B" should return a boolean!! > > "A==B" should return an array of boolean as it does now. This is all > right. > > *However* "bool(A==B)" should return a boolean, *not* raise an > exception. Why raise an exception? What is ambiguous about > "bool(A==B)"?? > > This is what happens when you write "if A==B" because then > "bool(A==B)" is somehow triggered and bang, an exception is raised. > > As I tried to explain, the default behaviour should be that "bool(A)" > return "A.all()" but not an exception. Why is there an exception > raising at all?
Sometimes, you want .all(), sometimes .any(). It really depends on the question you are asking. Even for bool(A), there is no easy answer. In some case I want True if some elements are true, in other cases only if all elements are true. I would agree with you some years ago, but after using bool(A) = A.all(), I started noticing that it brakes my coding instead of speeding it and does not give me any benefit at all. Matthieu -- French PhD student Website : http://matthieu-brucher.developpez.com/ Blogs : http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92 LinkedIn : http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
