So, I am very interested in making sure I remember the details of the counterproposal. What I recall is that you wanted to be able to differentiate between a "bit-pattern" mask and a boolean-array mask in the API. I believe currently even when bit-pattern masks are implemented the difference will be "hidden" from the user on the Python level.
I am sure to be missing other parts of the discussion as I have been in and out of it. Thanks, -Travis On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for your gracious email. > > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant <[email protected]> > wrote: >> It is a shame that Nathaniel and perhaps Matthew do not feel like their >> voice was heard. I wish I could have participated more fully in some of >> the discussions. I don't know if I could have really helped, but I would >> have liked to have tried to perhaps work alongside Mark to integrate some of >> the other ideas that had been expressed during the discussion. >> Unfortunately, I was traveling in NYC most of the time that Mark was >> working on this project and did not get a chance to interact with him as >> much as I would have liked. >> My view is that we didn't get quite to where I thought we would get, nor >> where I think we could be. I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very >> specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of a >> difficult problem. In particular, I really wanted bit-patterns >> implemented. However, I also understand that Mark did quite a bit of work >> and altered his original designs quite a bit in response to community >> feedback. I wasn't a major part of the pull request discussion, nor did I >> merge the changes, but I support Charles if he reviewed the code and felt >> like it was the right thing to do. I likely would have done the same thing >> rather than let Mark Wiebe's work languish. >> Merging Mark's code does not mean there is not more work to be done, but it >> is consistent with the reality that currently development on NumPy happens >> when people have the time to do it. I have not seen anything to convince >> me that there is not still time to make specific API changes that address >> some of the concerns. >> Perhaps, Nathaniel and or Matthew could summarize their concerns again and >> if desired submit a pull request to revert the changes. However, there is >> a definite bias against removing working code unless the arguments are very >> strong and receive a lot of support from others. > > Honestly - I am not sure whether there is any interest now, in the > arguments we made before. If there is, who is interested? I mean, > past politeness. > > I wasn't trying to restart that discussion, because I didn't know what > good it could do. At first I was hoping that we could ask whether > there was a better way of dealing with disagreements like this. > Later it seemed to me that the atmosphere was getting bad, and I > wanted to say that because I thought it was important. > >> Thank you for continuing to voice your opinions even when it may feel that >> the tide is against you. My view is that we only learn from people who >> disagree with us. > > Thank you for saying that. I hope that y'all will tell me if I am > making it harder for you to disagree, and I am sorry if I did so > here. > > Best, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion --- Travis Oliphant Enthought, Inc. [email protected] 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
