On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 12:08, Skipper Seabold <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Alan G Isaac <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Mark Miller<[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> Not quite. Bincount is fine if you have a set of approximately >>>> sequential numbers. But if you don't.... >> >> >> On 6/1/2011 9:35 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >>> Even worse, it fails miserably if you sequential numbers but with a high >>> shift. >>> np.bincount([100000001, 100000002]) # will take a lof of memory >>> Doing bincount with dict is faster in those cases. >> >> >> Since this discussion has turned shortcomings of bincount, >> may I ask why np.bincount([]) is not an empty array? >> Even more puzzling, why is np.bincount([],minlength=6) >> not a 6-array of zeros? >> > > Just looks like it wasn't coded that way, but it's low-hanging fruit. > Any objections to adding this behavior? This commit should take care > of it. Tests pass. Comments welcome, as I'm just getting my feet wet > here. > > https://github.com/jseabold/numpy/commit/133148880bba5fa3a11dfbb95cefb3da4f7970d5
I would use np.zeros(5, dtype=int) in test_empty_with_minlength(), but otherwise, it looks good. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
