On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Charles R Harris <[email protected] > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Root <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > Waiting for the mythical 2.0 probably won't work ;) We also need to give > folks a way to adjust ahead of time. I think the easiest way to do that is > with an extra keyword, say nanok, with True as the starting default, then > later we can make False the default. > No special keywords to work around behavior change please, it doesn't work well and you end up with a keyword you don't really want. Why not just give a FutureWarning in 1.8 and change to returning zero in 1.9? Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
