Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
You and I know that I've got an array with values [99, 100, 3] and a mask with values [False, False, True]. So maybe I'd like to see what happens if I take off the mask from the second value. I know that's what I want to do, but I don't know how to do it, because you won't let me manipulate the mask, because I'm not allowed to know that the NA values come from the mask.
The alterNEP is just saying - please - be straight with me. If you're doing masking, show me the mask, and don't try and hide that there are stored values underneath.
Considering that you have admitted before to not regularly using masked arrays, I seriously doubt that you would be able to judge whether this is a significant detriment or not. My entire point that I have been making is that Mark's implementation is not the same as the current masked arrays. Instead, it is a cleaner, more mature implementation that gets rid of extraneous "features".
This may explain why we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I am sure that Mark's implementation of masking is great. We're not talking about that. We're talking about whether it's a good idea to make masking look as though it is implementing the ABSENT idea. That's what I think is confusing, and that's the conversation I have been trying to pursue. Best, Matthew