Hi, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 1:54 AM, Mark Wiebe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:21 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> ... >> @Mark - I don't have a clear idea whether you consider the nafloat64 >> option to be still in play as the first thing to be implemented >> (before array.mask). If it is, what kind of thing would persuade you >> either way? > > I'm focusing all of my effort on getting my proposal of adding a mask to the > core ndarray into a state where it satisfies everyone's requirements as best > I can.
Maybe it would be worth setting out the requirements formally somewhere? > I'm not precluding the possibility that someone could convince me > that the na-dtype is good, but I gave it a good chunk of thought before > starting to write the proposal. To persuade me towards the na-dtype option, > I need to be convinced that I'm solving the problem class in a generic way > that works orthogonally with other features, with manageable implementation > requirements, a very usable result for both strong and weak programmers, and > with good performance characteristics. I think the na-dtype approach isn't > as generic as I would like, and the implementation seems like it would be > trickier than the masked approach. What I'm getting at, is that I think you have made the decision between these two implementations some time ago while looking at the C code. Now of course you would be a much better person to make that decision than - say - me. It's just that, if you want coherent feedback from us on this decision, we need to get some technical grasp of why you made it. I realize that it will not be easy to explain in detail, but honestly, it could be a useful discussion to have from your and our point of view, even if it ends up in the same place. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
