On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:56 PM, David Warde-Farley < d.warde.far...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Pierre Haessig > <pierre.haes...@crans.org> wrote: > > In [8]: tile(nan, (3,3)) # (it's a verb ! ) > > tile, in my opinion, is useful in some cases (for people who think in > terms of repmat()) but not very NumPy-ish. What I'd like is a function > that takes > > - an initial array_like "a" > - a shape "s" > - optionally, a dtype (otherwise inherit from a) > > and broadcasts "a" to the shape "s". In the case of scalars this is > just a fill. In the case of, say, a (5,) vector and a (10, 5) shape, > this broadcasts across rows, etc. > > I don't think it's worth special-casing scalar fills (except perhaps > as an implementation detail) when you have rich broadcasting semantics > that are already a fundamental part of NumPy, allowing for a much > handier primitive. > I have similar problems with "tile". I learned it for a particular use in numpy, and it would be hard for me to see it for another (contextually) different use. I do like the way you are thinking in terms of the broadcasting semantics, but I wonder if that is a bit awkward. What I mean is, if one were to use broadcasting semantics for creating an array, wouldn't one have just simply used broadcasting anyway? The point of broadcasting is to _avoid_ the creation of unneeded arrays. But maybe I can be convinced with some examples. Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
