Hi, On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> ...
That seems like a risky strategy to me, as the most likely outcome is that people worried about memory will avoid masked arrays because they know they use more memory. The memory usage is predictable and we won't learn any more about it from use. We most of us already know if we're having to optimize code for memory.
You won't get complaints, you'll just lose a group of users, who will, I suspect, stick to NaNs, unsatisfactory as they are.
This blade cuts both ways, we'd lose a group of users if we don't support masking semantics, too.
I didn't mean to agitate for my own use-case, I was only saying that 'implement masking, wait and see for na-dtype' was not a good strategy for deciding.
That said, Travis favors doing both, so there's a good chance there will be time for it.
That's very encouraging. I hope I can contribute somehow when the time comes, with review or some other way, Thanks a lot, Matthew