Hi, On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett >> >> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Keith Goodman <kwgood...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Matthew Brett >> >> >> >> <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> In the interest of making the discussion as concrete as >> >> >> >>> possible, >> >> >> >>> here >> >> >> >>> is my draft of an alternative proposal for NAs and masking, >> >> >> >>> based >> >> >> >>> on >> >> >> >>> Nathaniel's comments. Writing it, it seemed to me that >> >> >> >>> Nathaniel >> >> >> >>> is >> >> >> >>> right, that the ideas become much clearer when the NA idea and >> >> >> >>> the >> >> >> >>> MASK idea are separate. Please do pitch in for things I may >> >> >> >>> have >> >> >> >>> missed or misunderstood: >> >> >> >> [...] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for writing this up! I stuck it up as a gist so we can >> >> >> >> edit >> >> >> >> it >> >> >> >> more easily: >> >> >> >> https://gist.github.com/1056379/ >> >> >> >> This is your initial version: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://gist.github.com/1056379/c809715f4e9765db72908c605468304ea1eb2191 >> >> >> >> And I made a few changes: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> https://gist.github.com/1056379/33ba20300e1b72156c8fb655bd1ceef03f8a6583 >> >> >> >> Specifically, I added a rationale section, changed np.MASKED to >> >> >> >> np.IGNORE (as per comments in this thread), and added a vowel to >> >> >> >> "propmsk". >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It might be helpful to make a small toy class in python so that >> >> >> > people >> >> >> > can play around with NA and IGNORE from the alterNEP. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks for doing this. >> >> >> >> >> >> I don't know about you, but I don't know where to work on the >> >> >> discussion or draft implementation, because I am not sure where the >> >> >> disagreement is. Lluis has helpfully pointed out a specific case of >> >> >> interest. Pierre has fed back with some points of clarification. >> >> >> However, other than that, I'm not sure what we should be discussing. >> >> >> >> >> >> @Mark >> >> >> @Chuck >> >> >> @anyone >> >> >> >> >> >> Do you see problems with the alterNEP proposal? >> >> > >> >> > Yes, I really like my design as it stands now, and the alterNEP >> >> > removes >> >> > a >> >> > lot of the abstraction and interoperability that are in my opinion >> >> > the >> >> > best >> >> > parts. I've made more updates to the NEP based on continuing >> >> > feedback, >> >> > which >> >> > are part of the pull request I want reviews for. >> >> >> >> Ah - I think what you are saying is - too late I've started writing it. >> > >> > Do you want me to spend my whole summer designing something before >> > starting >> > the implementation? >> >> No, but, this is an open source project. Hence it matters not only >> what gets written but how the decisions are made and quality of the >> discussion. Here what I see is that you lost interest in the >> discussion some time ago and stopped responding in any specific way. >> This unfortunately conveys a lack of interest in our views. That >> might not be true, in which case I'm sure you can convey the opposite >> with some substantial discsussion now. Or it might be for good >> reason, heaven knows I've been wrong enough times. But the community >> cost is high for the sake of an extra few days implementation time. >> Frankly I think the API will also suffer, but I'm less certain about >> that. > > What open source has trouble with isn't discussion, it's attracting active > and competent developers. You should treat them as gifts from the $deity > when they show up. If they are open and responsive to discussion, and I > think Mark is, so much the better. Mind, you don't need to bow down and kiss > their feet, but you should at least take the time to understand what they > are doing so your criticisms and feedback are informed.
Are you now going to explain why you believe our criticisms and feedback are not well informed? See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
