Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:03 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Charles R Harris >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> We need to make a decision for ticket #1123 >> <http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1123#comment:11> >> regarding what nansum should return when all values are nan. At >> some earlier point it was zero, but currently it is nan, in fact >> it is nan whatever the operation is. That is consistent, simple >> and serves to mark the array or axis as containing all nans. I >> would like to close the ticket and am a bit inclined to go with >> the current behaviour although there is an argument to be made >> for returning 0 for the nansum case. Thoughts? >> >> >> To add a bit of context, one could argue that the results should be >> consistent with the equivalent operations on empty arrays and always >> be non-nan. >> >> In [1]: nansum([]) >> Out[1]: nan >> >> In [2]: sum([]) >> Out[2]: 0.0 > > > I favor nansum([]) returning 0.0 which implies returning 0.0 when all > the elements are nan. >
+1 > -Travis > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
