Open observingClouds opened 2 years ago
No, the argument is correctly passed on (this happens through ;kwargs...
which just takes all keyword argument and so kwargs
can be passed on to functions inside functions).
julia> using BitInformation
julia> a = rand(Float32,100)
julia> bitinformation(a,set_zero_insignificant=true)
32-element Vector{Float64}:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
â‹®
0.0
julia> bitinformation(a,set_zero_insignificant=false)
32-element Vector{Float64}:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0040017578752447125
0.00762811148439329
0.004276987851521523
0.00023748155804284116
â‹®
0.007157098012580706
0.00791399692709715
0.00480941092599706
0.002926451394794344
0.008214283901808138
0.005549176061803784
0.00359966561437504
0.017224936442887365
0.0059782906996011615
julia> bitinformation(a,set_zero_insignificant=false,masked_value=NaN32)
32-element Vector{Float64}:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0038971829878380847
0.005576694247738862
0.005576694247738862
0.0005831180658698092
â‹®
0.0059096798906598975
0.006578377952308912
0.003943640725332606
0.004330712596832224
0.006655303074143492
0.004283055423926335
0.002705618353765177
0.018927358053287838
0.006400338428602179
but as you can see the results are not exactly the same, the reason is that to avoid counting information across array bounds currently always the last element in every dimension is masked. https://github.com/milankl/BitInformation.jl/blob/5f3ebbd135e427c68048988fdc24f6f2d5cb71e9/src/bit_count.jl#L125 So as long as you have large datasets all good, but you are right, maybe this should be done differently. Quick check, if you add one more element to your example you'll actually get the same result
julia> bitinformation(Float32[1,2,3,4,5], set_zero_insignificant=false, masked_value=NaN32)
32-element Vector{Float64}:
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.25162916738782287
0.25162916738782287
â‹®
Just changed the title of this issue because this is really what this is about: Counting information across array bounds is like periodic boundary conditions, if you mask the last element then its like closed boundaries...
Alright, thanks for the clarification!
Hi, great package!
I just realised that the
set_zero_insignificant
argument is alwaystrue
whenmasked_value
is supplied. I expectbe the same as
This is however not the case for me. I tested this behaviour with version 0.5.0 and 0.5.1. There is probably only the
set_zero_insignificant
-keyword missing in own of the function definitions, but my eyes have not yet adapted to the Julia language to pin-point this in the code🤣 .