On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Firing <efiring@hawaii.edu> wrote:
> On 10/23/2011 12:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> like. And in this case I do think we can come up with an API that will
>> make everyone happy, but that Mark's current API probably can't be
>> incrementally evolved to become that API.)
>>
>
> No one could object to coming up with an API that makes everyone happy,
> provided that it actually gets coded up, tested, and is found to be fast
> and maintainable.  When you say the API probably can't be evolved, do
> you mean that the underlying implementation also has to be redone?  And
> if so, who will do it, and when?
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>

I personally am a bit apprehensive as I am worried about the masked
array abstraction "leaking" through to users of pandas, something
which I simply will not accept (why I decided against using numpy.ma
early on, that + performance problems). Basically if having an
understanding of masked arrays is a prerequisite for using pandas, the
whole thing is DOA to me as it undermines the usability arguments I've
been making about switching to Python (from R) for data analysis and
statistical computing.