On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:06 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote: > > On 2013/06/13 10:36 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 9:36 AM, Aldcroft, Thomas > >> <aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu <mailto:aldcr...@head.cfa.harvard.edu>> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu > >> <mailto: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 > >> <http://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 <http://np.ma> (both conceptually and programatically). > >> > >> np.values() might be a decent alternative. > >> > >> Cheers! > >> Ben Root > > > > Even if he is representing the devil, Ben raises a good point. To > > summarize, the most recent set of suggestions that seem not to have been > > completely shot down include: > > > > np.filled_with((10, 24), np.nan) > > np.full((10, 24), np.nan) # analogous to np.empty > > np.values((10, 24), np.nan) # seems clear, concise > > np.initialized((10, 24), np.nan) # a few more characters, but > > # seems clear to me. > > > > Personally, I like all of the last three better than the first. >
What about: np.filled_array((10, 24), np.nan) If I just saw np.values(..) in some code I would never guess what it is doing from the name, and beyond that I would guess that I can put in multiple "values" in the second arg. np.initialized() is more obvious to me. - Tom > > np.values > sounds also good to me, a noun like np.ones, np.nans, np.infs, np.zeros > > I don't like np.initialized because empty also initializes and array > (although) an empty one. > > Josef > > > > > Eric > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
