Stefan van der Walt
Thu Jan 24 14:58:14 CST 2008
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 04:58:04AM -0500, Pierre GM wrote:
> On Thursday 24 January 2008 04:02:52 Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> > I'm not 100% sure about the new behaviour -- compress now removes
> > masked elements, instead of ignoring them. Whereas a person would
> > have been able to do
> > compress(x,condition).compressed()
> > before, the mask information is now thrown away.
> Mmh, OK, I see. The problem arises when the condition is masked. Filling w/
> False will get rid of the masked values, filling with True won't work either
> (cf example below). An option is then to simply take the condition as a
How about masking the output where the condition is masked?
I.e. keep where condition is True, remove where condition is False and
mask where condition is masked.
> > The numpy docstring states that compress should be equivalent to
> > a[condition], which is no longer the case.
> Good point... In most cases, as long as an axis is not specified. Note that
> the equivalence a.compress(condition) and a[condition] is not strictly true
> even for regular ndarrays: take a look at the example on the scipy site
> >>>b = array([[10,20,30],[40,50,60]])
> >>>b.compress(b.ravel() >= 22)
> array([30, 40, 50, 60])
> IndexError: index (2) out of range (0<=index<=1) in dimension 0
You're right, better equivalent code would be
> Anyhow, I just commited an update fixing our initial problem (viz, forcing
> condition to a regular ndarray).
Thanks! I'll check it out.
More information about the Numpy-discussion