On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas < aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote: > >> On 2013/06/12 8:13 AM, Warren Weckesser wrote: >> > That's why I suggested 'filledwith' (add the underscore if you like). >> > This also allows a corresponding masked implementation, 'ma.filledwith', >> > without clobbering the existing 'ma.filled'. >> >> Consensus on np.filled? absolutely not, you do not have a consensus. >> >> np.filledwith or filled_with: fine with me, maybe even with >> everyone--let's see. I would prefer the underscore version. >> > > +1 on np.filled_with. It's unique the meaning is extremely obvious. We > do use np.ma.filled in astropy so a big -1 on deprecating that (which would > then require doing numpy version checks to get the right method). Even > when there is an NA dtype the numpy.ma users won't go away anytime soon. > I like np.filled_with(), but just to be devil's advocate, think of the syntax: np.filled_with((10, 24), np.nan) As I read that, I am filling the array with (10, 24), not NaNs. Minor issue, for sure, but just thought I raise that. -1 on deprecation of np.ma.filled(). -1 on np.filled() due to collision with np.ma (both conceptually and programatically). np.values() might be a decent alternative. Cheers! Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
