On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> On 2013/01/17 4:13 AM, Pierre Haessig wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Le 14/01/2013 20:05, Benjamin Root a écrit : > >> 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. > > > > I feel that one of the point of the discussion is : although a new (or > > not so new...) function to create a filled array would be more elegant > > than the existing pair of functions "np.zeros" and "np.ones", there are > > maybe not so many usecases for filled arrays *other than zeros values*. > > > > I can remember having initialized a non-zero array *some months ago*. > > For the anecdote it was a vector of discretized vehicule speed values > > which I wanted to be initialized with a predefined mean speed value > > prior to some optimization. In that usecase, I really didn't care about > > the performance of this initialization step. > > > > So my overall feeling after this thread is > > - *yes* a single dedicated fill/init/someverb function would give a > > slightly better API, > > - but *no* it's not important because np.empty and np.zeros covers 95 > > % usecases ! > > I agree with your summary and conclusion. > > Eric > > Can we at least have a np.nans() and np.infs() functions? This should cover an additional 4% of use-cases. Ben Root P.S. - I know they aren't verbs...
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion