Hi, On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > >> I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth of >> the NumPy data-structure by the 3 pointers needed to hold the masked-array >> storage. This is especially true when there is talk to potentially add >> additional attributes to the NumPy array (for labels and other >> meta-information). If you are willing to let us know how you feel about >> this, please speak up. > > I guess there are two questions here > > 1) Will something like the current version of masked arrays have a > long term future in numpy, regardless of eventual API? Most likely > answer - yes? > 2) Will likely changes to the masked array API make any difference to > the number of extra pointers? Likely answer no? > > Is that right? > > I have the impression that the masked array API discussion still has > not come out fully into the unforgiving light of discussion day, but > if the answer to 2) is No, then I suppose the API discussion is not > relevant to the 3 pointers change.
Sorry, if the answers to 1 and 2 are Yes and No then the API discussion may not be relevant. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
