Hi, On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Charles R Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:29 AM, Pierre GM <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> This thread is getting quite long, innit ? >> And I think it's getting a tad confusing, because we're mixing two >> different concepts: missing values and masks. >> There should be support for missing values in numpy.core, I think we all >> agree on that. >> * What's been suggested of adding new dtypes (nafloat, naint) is great, by >> why not making it the default, then ? >> >> * Operations involving a NA (whatever the NA actually is, depending on the >> dtype of the input) should result in a NA (whatever the NA defined by the >> outputs dtype). That could be done by overloading the existing ufuncs to >> support the new dtypes. >> * There should be some simple methods to retrieve the location of those >> NAs in an array. Whether we just output the indices or a full boolean array >> (w/ True for a NA, False for a non-NA or vice-versa) needs to be decided. >> * We can always re-implement masked arrays to use these NAs in a way which >> would be consistent with numpy.ma (so as not to confuse existing users of >> numpy.ma): a mask would be a boolean array with the same shape than the >> underlying ndarray, with True for NA. >> Mark, I'd suggest you modify your proposal, making it clearer that it's >> not to add all of numpy.ma functionalities in the core, but just support >> these missing values. Using the term 'mask' should be avoided as much as >> possible, use a 'missing data' or whatever. > > I think he aims to support both.
I don't think Mark is proposing to support both. He's proposing to implement only array.mask. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
