[Numpy-discussion] Missing data wrap-up and request for comments
Charles R Harris
charlesr.harris at gmail.com
Wed May 9 18:33:49 EDT 2012
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis at continuum.io> wrote:
> On re-reading, I want to make a couple of things clear:
> 1) This "wrap-up" discussion is *only* for what to do for NumPy 1.7 in
> such a way that we don't tie our hands in the future. I do not believe
> we can figure out what to do for masked arrays in one short week. What
> happens beyond NumPy 1.7 should be still discussed and explored. My
> urgency is entirely about moving forward from where we are in master right
> now in a direction that we can all accept. The tight timeline is so
> that we do *something* and move forward.
> 2) I missed another possible proposal for NumPy 1.7 which is in the
> write-up that Mark and Nathaniel made: remove the masked array additions
> entirely possibly moving them to another module like numpy-dtypes.
> Again, these are only for NumPy 1.7. What happens in any future NumPy
> and beyond will depend on who comes to the table for both discussion and
Why don't we go with 2) then? Mark implies that it takes the least work and
it kicks the decision down the road. It may well be that a better approach
turns up after more discussion, or that we decide to just pull it out, but
the first takes time to arrive at and the second takes effort that could be
better spent (IMHO) on other things at the moment.
My sense is that the API is actually the major point of contention,
although I may just be speaking for myself. And perhaps we should look for
ways of adding support for masked array implementations rather than masked
arrays themselves. It could be that easy to use infrastructure that
enhanced others efforts might be a better way forward.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion