Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

add keepat! for in-place logical filtering #39528

Closed
wants to merge 8 commits into from
Closed

add keepat! for in-place logical filtering #39528

wants to merge 8 commits into from

Conversation

MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor

Closes #39470

@kshyatt kshyatt added the iteration Involves iteration or the iteration protocol label Feb 6, 2021
@kshyatt
Copy link
Contributor

kshyatt commented Feb 6, 2021

Could doc strings be added for this? Otherwise lgtm

@kshyatt kshyatt added arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] needs docs Documentation for this change is required labels Feb 6, 2021
@kshyatt kshyatt requested review from rfourquet and kshyatt February 6, 2021 16:28
kshyatt
kshyatt previously requested changes Feb 6, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@kshyatt kshyatt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

With docs this should be good to go I think

@MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Done! I also added a NEWS.md entry. Let me know if the descriptions need tweaking.

@MasonProtter MasonProtter mentioned this pull request Feb 7, 2021
Draft
vtjnash
vtjnash reviewed Apr 16, 2021
View reviewed changes
base/array.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
vtjnash
vtjnash reviewed Apr 16, 2021
View reviewed changes
base/array.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
vtjnash
vtjnash approved these changes Apr 16, 2021
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@vtjnash vtjnash left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you add a reference to this into doc/src/base/arrays.md

@vtjnash vtjnash added forget me not PRs that one wants to make sure aren't forgotten and removed needs docs Documentation for this change is required labels Apr 16, 2021
@MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor Author

MasonProtter commented Apr 16, 2021 •
edited
Loading

I can add this to doc/src/base/arrays.md, but maybe it'd fit better in doc/src/base/collections.md as that is where filter! is?

@vtjnash
Copy link
Member

vtjnash commented Apr 16, 2021

yeah, that sounds good

@vtjnash vtjnash added merge me PR is reviewed. Merge when all tests are passing and removed forget me not PRs that one wants to make sure aren't forgotten labels Apr 16, 2021
vtjnash
vtjnash reviewed Apr 19, 2021
View reviewed changes
base/array.jl
"""
function mask!(a::AbstractVector, m::AbstractVector{Bool})
j = firstindex(a)
for i in eachindex(a, m)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Q for anyone: is eachindex and nextind / iterate guaranteed to be in the same visit order?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mbauman @timholy @JeffBezanson?

@rfourquet
Copy link
Member

Shouldn't we unify the names with keepat! from #36229? For consistency with deleteat! which accepts either a mask or indices. I think mask! wouldn't work as a name for the keepat! functionality, would keepat! work as a name for the mask! functionality?

@musm
Copy link
Contributor

musm commented Apr 28, 2021

Shouldn't we unify the names with keepat! from #36229? For consistency with deleteat! which accepts either a mask or indices. I think mask! wouldn't work as a name for the keepat! functionality, would keepat! work as a name for the mask! functionality?

Good point to bring this up. Are these two PRs stalled on bikeshedding a name?

@simeonschaub simeonschaub added triage This should be discussed on a triage call and removed merge me PR is reviewed. Merge when all tests are passing labels Apr 28, 2021
@simeonschaub
Copy link
Member

Removing merge me label and marking for triage since it looks like there still has to be a definite decision made on the name.

@oxinabox
Copy link
Contributor

oxinabox commented May 27, 2021 •
edited
Loading

Is the reason we want this just because deleteat!(xs, .!mask) is to expensive because flipping the mask?

@oscardssmith
Copy link
Member

triage says keepat!

@oscardssmith oscardssmith added forget me not PRs that one wants to make sure aren't forgotten and removed triage This should be discussed on a triage call labels May 27, 2021
@vtjnash vtjnash changed the title add mask! for in-place logical filtering add keepat! for in-place logical filtering May 27, 2021
@MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Okay, I'll amend the PR with the new name, sorry I couldn't make the Triage call.

@simeonschaub simeonschaub removed the forget me not PRs that one wants to make sure aren't forgotten label May 29, 2021
@rfourquet
Copy link
Member

@MasonProtter did you close this by inadvertently?

@StefanKarpinski
Copy link
Member

Reopened in case. Can close again if it was on purpose.

@MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor Author

I closed this because #36229 was merged, which is the exact same thing, right? I didn’t realize they were doing the same thing until yours was merged @rfourquet or I wouldn’t have opened this one in the first place.

@vtjnash vtjnash reopened this Jun 18, 2021
@vtjnash
Copy link
Member

vtjnash commented Jun 18, 2021

I believe they do different, but complimentary things

@rfourquet
Copy link
Member

Yes IIRC, the method from the other PR was receiving indices, while this one here receives a boolean mask.

@MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor Author

MasonProtter commented Jun 18, 2021 •
edited
Loading

🤦 well im glad you paid closer attention than I did!

Should these be methods of the same function, or different functions?

@oscardssmith
Copy link
Member

Triage decided on different methods a few weeks ago when we discussed this. The reason is that deleteat has methods for both.

@rashidrafeek rashidrafeek mentioned this pull request Sep 1, 2021
Closed
@bkamins
Copy link
Member

bkamins commented Sep 7, 2021

will this get 1.7 label? I would like to add keepat! to JuliaLang/Compat.jl#750 and it would be great to know what contract it will support in 1.7. Thank you!

@JeffBezanson JeffBezanson mentioned this pull request Sep 22, 2021
Merged
@MasonProtter
Copy link
Contributor Author

Superseded by #42351

@MasonProtter MasonProtter deleted the filter_mask branch October 30, 2024 10:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@vtjnash vtjnash vtjnash approved these changes

@kshyatt kshyatt kshyatt left review comments

@rfourquet rfourquet Awaiting requested review from rfourquet

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] iteration Involves iteration or the iteration protocol
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Inplace mask of vector
10 participants
@MasonProtter @kshyatt @vtjnash @rfourquet @musm @simeonschaub @oxinabox @oscardssmith @StefanKarpinski @bkamins