> They are supposed to have different defaults because the functional
> forms are largely for backward compatibility where axis=0 was the default.
>
> -Travis
Isn't backwards compatibility what "oldnumeric" is for?
+1 for consistent defaults.
-
Sasha wrote:
>I cannot reproduce your results, but I wonder if the following is right:
>
>
>
a = array([1,2,3,4,5])
var(a[newaxis,:])
>array([ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.])
>
>
a[newaxis,:].var()
>2.0
>
>
a[newaxis,:].var(axis=0)
>>
I also couldn't reproduce it on my 0.9.8 on Linux.DGOn 8/1/06, David L Goldsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Hi, Hanno. I ran your sample session in numpy 0.9.8 (on a Mac, just so
you know; I don't yet have numpy installed on my Windows platform, and Idon't have immediate access to a *nix box) and
I cannot reproduce your results, but I wonder if the following is right:
>>> a = array([1,2,3,4,5])
>>> var(a[newaxis,:])
array([ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.])
>>> a[newaxis,:].var()
2.0
>>> a[newaxis,:].var(axis=0)
array([ 0., 0., 0., 0., 0.])
Are method and function supposed to have different de
Hi, Hanno. I ran your sample session in numpy 0.9.8 (on a Mac, just so
you know; I don't yet have numpy installed on my Windows platform, and I
don't have immediate access to a *nix box) and could not reproduce the
problem, i.e., it does appear to have been fixed in 0.9.8.
DG
Hanno Klemm wrot
