On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Root 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,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Benjamin Root 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 returnin
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
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:46:33 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> So nansum should return zeros rather than the current NaNs?
Yes, my feeling is that nansum([]) should be 0.
Stéfan
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.s
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Stéfan van der Walt 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 wrote:
> >
> > > This is going to need to be heavily documented with doctests. Also,
> just
> > > to clarify, are we talking
On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 08:33:47 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Benjamin Root 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
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:57 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:44 PM, wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith
> wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:44 PM, wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Let me
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:44 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris
> >> wrote:
> >>> Let me try to summarize. To begin with, the environment of the nan
> functions
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>> Let me try to summarize. To begin with, the environment of the nan functions
>>> is rather special.
>>>
>>> 1) if the array is of
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> Let me try to summarize. To begin with, the environment of the nan functions
>> is rather special.
>>
>> 1) if the array is of not of inexact type, they punt to the non-nan
>> v
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Let me try to summarize. To begin with, the environment of the nan functions
> is rather special.
>
> 1) if the array is of not of inexact type, they punt to the non-nan
> versions.
> 2) if the array is of inexact type, then out and dtype
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 08:47 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Berg
> > wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> > >
> > >
> >
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 08:47 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Berg
> wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
On Jul 15, 2013 11:47 AM, "Charles R Harris"
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Berg <
>> sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:58 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Berg <
> sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Charles R Harris
>> > wrote:
>> >
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > For nansum, I would expect 0 even in the case of all
> >
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Sebastian Berg
wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> > wrote:
> >
>
>
>
> >
> > For nansum, I would expect 0 even in the case of all
> >
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Benjamin Root 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, a
On Mon, 2013-07-15 at 07:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
>
> For nansum, I would expect 0 even in the case of all
> nans. The point
> of these functi
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?
Ben Root
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Warren Weckesser <
> warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/13, Charles R Harris wrote:
>> > Some corner cases in the mean, var, std.
>> >
>> > *Empty arrays*
>> >
>> > I think these cases sh
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Warren Weckesser <
warren.weckes...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/14/13, Charles R Harris wrote:
> > Some corner cases in the mean, var, std.
> >
> > *Empty arrays*
> >
> > I think these cases should either raise an error or just return nan.
> > Warnings seem ineffecti
On 7/14/13, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Some corner cases in the mean, var, std.
>
> *Empty arrays*
>
> I think these cases should either raise an error or just return nan.
> Warnings seem ineffective to me as they are only issued once by default.
>
> In [3]: ones(0).mean()
> /home/charris/.local/li
Some corner cases in the mean, var, std.
*Empty arrays*
I think these cases should either raise an error or just return nan.
Warnings seem ineffective to me as they are only issued once by default.
In [3]: ones(0).mean()
/home/charris/.local/lib/python2.7/site-packages/numpy/core/_methods.py:61:
25 matches
Mail list logo