Re: Replace nan-ignoring functions with an ignore_nan flag to their normal counterparts
matti picus via NumPy-Discussion <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.python.numeric.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAO8bCgjWTXbQiD4Q5PQFH1K5roOFw6rsK_Jc8qj-Xy9CxZHOrA@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:04 AM Carlos Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > NumPy has the following nan-ignoring functions: > > ... > Suggestion: Replace these functions with an ignore_nan flag to their > normal counterparts. This avoids having entirely separate functions just to > filter out nans, and shrinks the size of the codebase. It is also more > user-friendly: it is simpler and easier to toggle a boolean flag. > > This has been briefly suggested before: > > - > https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/FQ362NGJLOJFN3BCJVST5TAQZCVWZTNO/ > - https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/25474#issuecomment-1868484678 > > As mentioned in links, SciPy has a well-defined nan_policy kwarg. If we are to change this I think we should discuss adopting that policy https://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/dev/api-dev/nan_policy.html. We may need to keep the current functions around for a while as aliases. I am not sure about the advantages other than consistency with SciPy (which is no small thing). I doubt it will shrink the size of the codebase significantly, and using the named functions explicitly is just as easy as adding a kwarg. It might however be easier to teach. Matti _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3//lists/numpy-discussion.python.org Member address: [email protected]