On 07/08/2011 08:58 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > Just checking - but is this: > > On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Bruce Southey<[email protected]> wrote: > ... >> The one thing that we do need now is the code that implements the small >> set of core ideas (array creation and simple numerical operations). >> Hopefully that will provide a better grasp of the concepts and the >> performance differences to determine the acceptability of the approach(es). > in reference to this: > >> On 07/08/2011 07:15 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > ... >>> Can I ask - what do you recommend that we do now, for the discussion? >>> Should we be quiet and wait until there is code to test, or, as >>> Nathaniel has tried to do, work at reaching some compromise that makes >>> sense to some or all parties? > ? > > Cheers, > > Matthew Simply, I think the time for discussion has passed and it is now time to see the 'cards'. I do not know enough (or anything) about the implementation so I need code to know the actual 'cost' of Mark's idea with real situations.
I am also curious on the implementation as 'conditional' unmasking can be used implement some of the missing values ideas. That is unmask all values that do not match some special value like max(int) for int arrays and some IEEE 754 range (like 'Indeterminate') for floats. The reason is that I have major concerns with handling missing values in integer arrays that Mark's idea hopefully will remove. Bruce _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
