On Jun 24, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 15:53, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Enthought has asked me to look into the "missing data" problem and how > >> NumPy > >> could treat it better. I've considered the different ideas of adding dtype > >> variants with a special signal value and masked arrays, and concluded that > >> adding masks to the core ndarray appears is the best way to deal with the > >> problem in general. > >> I've written a NEP that proposes a particular design, viewable here: > >> https://github.com/m-paradox/numpy/blob/cmaskedarray/doc/neps/c-masked-array.rst > >> There are some questions at the bottom of the NEP which definitely need > >> discussion to find the best design choices. Please read, and let me know of > >> all the errors and gaps you find in the document. > > > > One thing that could use more explanation is how your proposal > > improves on the status quo, i.e. numpy.ma. As far as I can see, you > > are mostly just shuffling around the functionality that already > > exists. There has been a continual desire for something like R's NA > > values by people who are very familiar with both R and numpy's masked > > arrays. Both have their uses, and as Nathaniel points out, R's > > approach seems to be very well-liked by a lot of users. In essence, > > *that's* the "missing data problem" that you were charged with: making > > happy the users who are currently dissatisfied with masked arrays. It > > doesn't seem to me that moving the functionality from numpy.ma to > > numpy.ndarray resolves any of their issues. > > Speaking as a user who's avoided numpy.ma, it wasn't actually because > of the behavior I pointed out (I never got far enough to notice it), > but because I got the distinct impression that it was a "second-class > citizen" in numpy-land. I don't know if that's true. But I wasn't sure > how solidly things like interactions between numpy and masked arrays > worked, or how , and it seemed like it had more niche uses. So it just > seemed like more hassle than it was worth for my purposes. Moving it > into the core and making it really solid *would* address these > issues... > > > There is some truth to that. The maintainer/creator of masked arrays was > Pierre and he hasn't much time these days.
So true. I'd be delighted to work at least part time on it, though. Send me a job offer :) _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
