On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> 2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt <[email protected]> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and >>>> so >>> >>> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus? >>> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing. >>> >> >> We seem to have a consensus regarding interest in the topic. > > This email is mainly to Travis. > > This thread seems to be dying, condemning us to keep repeating the > same conversation with no result. > > Chuck has made it clear he is not interested in this conversation. > Until it is clear you are interested in this conversation, it will > keep dying. As you know, I think that will be very bad for numpy, > and, as you know, I care a great deal about that.
I am interested in the conversation, but I think I've already stated my views as well as I know how. I'm not sure what else I should do at this point. We do need consensus (defined as the absence of serious objectors) for me to agree to a NumPy 1.X release. I don't think it helps us get to a consensus to further discuss non-technical issues at this point. There is much interest in ideas for finding common ground in the masked array situation, but that should happen on another thread. -Travis _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
