On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:05, Charles R Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Robert Kern <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:02, Charles R Harris >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Gael Varoquaux >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Ufuncs need work, but I have >> >> the impression that your proposal is simply to solve the special case >> >> of >> >> masked data in the ufunc by breaking the simple numpy array model. >> > >> > I wonder how much of the complication could be located in the dtype. >> >> What dtype? There are no new dtypes in this proposal. > > Not yet, there aren't.
You're being cryptic. The entire point of the proposal seems to be to *avoid* new dtypes for the purpose of handling missing data. What are you trying to refer to? -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
