To add a bit of context to the question of nansum on empty results, we currently differ from MATLAB and R in this respect, they return zero no matter what. Personally, I think it should return zero, but our current behavior of returning nans has existed for a long time.
Personally, I think we need a deprecation warning and possibly wait to change this until 2.0, with plenty of warning that this will change. Ben Root On Jul 15, 2013 8:46 PM, "Charles R Harris" <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za>wrote: > >> On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:33:47 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: >> > >> > > This is going to need to be heavily documented with doctests. Also, >> just >> > > to clarify, are we talking about a ValueError for doing a nansum on an >> > > empty array as well, or will that now return a zero? >> > > >> > > >> > I was going to leave nansum as is, as it seems that the result was by >> > choice rather than by accident. >> >> That makes sense--I like Sebastian's explanation whereby operations that >> define an identity yields that upon empty input. >> > > So nansum should return zeros rather than the current NaNs? > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > 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
