On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Eric Firing <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > >> >> I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead: >> a.mask[0:2] = True? > > That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's > implementation. > > I can live with either, but I much prefer the numpy.ma version because > it fits with the use of bit-flags for editing data; set bit 1 if it > fails check A, set bit 2 if it fails check B, etc. So, if it evaluates > as True, there is a problem, and the value is masked *out*. >
I think in Mark's implementation it works the same: >>> a = np.arange(3, maskna=True) >>> a[1] = np.NA >>> a array([0, NA, 2]) >>> np.isna(a) array([False, True, False], dtype=bool) This is more consistent than using False to represent an NA mask, I agree. _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
