On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io>wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input >> from as many people as possible, it is clear that there is still >> disagreement about what to do, but there have been some fruitful >> discussions that ensued. >> >> This isn't really new as there was significant disagreement about what to >> do when the masked array code was initially checked in to master. So, in >> order to move forward, Mark and I are going to work together with whomever >> else is willing to help with an effort that is in the spirit of my third >> proposal but has a few adjustments. >> >> The idea will be fleshed out in more detail as it progresses, but the >> basic concept is to create an (experimental) ndmasked object in NumPy 1.7 >> and leave the actual ndarray object unchanged. While the details need to >> be worked out here, a goal is to have the C-API work with both ndmasked >> arrays and arrayobjects (possibly by defining a base-class C-level >> structure that both ndarrays inherit from). This might also be a good >> way for Dag to experiment with his ideas as well but that is not an >> explicit goal. >> >> One way this could work, for example is to have PyArrayObject * be the >> base-class array (essentially the same C-structure we have now with a >> HASMASK flag). Then, the ndmasked object could inherit from PyArrayObject * >> as well but add more members to the C-structure. I think this is the >> easiest thing to do and requires the least amount of code-change. It >> is also possible to define an abstract base-class PyArrayObject * that both >> ndarray and ndmasked inherit from. That way ndarray and ndmasked are >> siblings even though the ndarray would essentially *be* the PyArrayObject * >> --- just with a different type-hierarchy on the python side. >> >> This work will take some time and, therefore, I don't expect 1.7 to be >> released prior to SciPy Austin with an end of June target date. The >> timing will largely depend on what time is available from people interested >> in resolving the situation. Mark and I will have some availability for >> this work in June but not a great deal (about 2 man-weeks total between >> us). If there are others who can step in and help, it will help >> accelerate the process. >> >> > This will be a difficult thing for others to help with since the concept > is vague, the design decisions seem to be in your and Mark's hands, and you > say you don't have much time. It looks to me like 1.7 will keep slipping > and I don't think that is a good thing. Why not go for option 2, which will > get 1.7 out there and push the new masked array work in to 1.8? Breaking > the flow of development and release has consequences, few of them good. > Agreed. 1.6.0 was released one year ago already, let's focus on polishing what's in there *now*. I have not followed closely what the decision was for a LTS release, but if 1.7 is supposed to be it, that's another argument about changing anything there for 1.7. David
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion