[Numpy-discussion] Bug in numpy std, etc. with other data structures?
Sat Sep 17 20:11:43 CDT 2011
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:36 PM, <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM, Wes McKinney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Skipper Seabold <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Just ran into this. Any objections for having numpy.std and other
>>> functions in core/fromnumeric.py call asanyarray before trying to use
>>> the array's method? Other data structures like pandas and larry define
>>> their own std method, for instance, and this doesn't allow them to
>>> pass through. I'm inclined to say that the issue is with numpy, though
>>> maybe the data structures shouldn't shadow numpy array methods while
>>> altering the signature. I dunno.
>>> df = pandas.DataFrame(np.random.random((10,5)))
>>> TypeError: std() got an unexpected keyword argument 'dtype'
>>> array([ 0.30883352, 0.3133324 , 0.26517361, 0.26389029, 0.20022444])
>>> Though I don't think this would work with larry yet.
>>> Pull request: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/160
>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>> Note I've no real intention of making DataFrame fully ndarray-like--
>> but it's nice to be able to type:
>> etc. which works the same as ndarray. I suppose the
>> __array__/__array_wrap__ interface is there largely as a convenience.
> I'm a bit worried about the different ddof defaults in cases like
> this. Essentially we will not be able to rely on ddof=0 anymore.
> Different defaults on axis are easy to catch, but having the same
> function call return sometimes ddof=0 and sometimes ddof=1 might make
> for some fun debugging.
>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
Can we lobby for default ddof=1 in NumPy 2.0? Breaking with a
convention like this doesn't make much sense to me.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion