On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Wes McKinney <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Firing <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/23/2011 12:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > >> like. And in this case I do think we can come up with an API that will > >> make everyone happy, but that Mark's current API probably can't be > >> incrementally evolved to become that API.) > >> > > > > No one could object to coming up with an API that makes everyone happy, > > provided that it actually gets coded up, tested, and is found to be fast > > and maintainable. When you say the API probably can't be evolved, do > > you mean that the underlying implementation also has to be redone? And > > if so, who will do it, and when? > > > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > I personally am a bit apprehensive as I am worried about the masked > array abstraction "leaking" through to users of pandas, something > which I simply will not accept (why I decided against using numpy.ma > early on, that + performance problems). Basically if having an > understanding of masked arrays is a prerequisite for using pandas, the > whole thing is DOA to me as it undermines the usability arguments I've > been making about switching to Python (from R) for data analysis and > statistical computing. > The missing data functionality looks far more like R than numpy.ma. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
