Travis, We have a significant user base for masked arrays, with a lot of "real-life" experience, use-cases and data.
We would really like to get involved on this, please keep us in the loop. C. On 5/18/12 2:47 PM, "Travis Oliphant" <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: >Hey all, > >After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input >from as many people as possible, it is clear that there is still >disagreement about what to do, but there have been some fruitful >discussions that ensued. > >This isn't really new as there was significant disagreement about what to >do when the masked array code was initially checked in to master. So, >in order to move forward, Mark and I are going to work together with >whomever else is willing to help with an effort that is in the spirit of >my third proposal but has a few adjustments. > >The idea will be fleshed out in more detail as it progresses, but the >basic concept is to create an (experimental) ndmasked object in NumPy 1.7 >and leave the actual ndarray object unchanged. While the details need >to be worked out here, a goal is to have the C-API work with both >ndmasked arrays and arrayobjects (possibly by defining a base-class >C-level structure that both ndarrays inherit from). This might also >be a good way for Dag to experiment with his ideas as well but that is >not an explicit goal. > >One way this could work, for example is to have PyArrayObject * be the >base-class array (essentially the same C-structure we have now with a >HASMASK flag). Then, the ndmasked object could inherit from PyArrayObject >* as well but add more members to the C-structure. I think this is >the easiest thing to do and requires the least amount of code-change. > It is also possible to define an abstract base-class PyArrayObject * >that both ndarray and ndmasked inherit from. That way ndarray and >ndmasked are siblings even though the ndarray would essentially *be* the >PyArrayObject * --- just with a different type-hierarchy on the python >side. > >This work will take some time and, therefore, I don't expect 1.7 to be >released prior to SciPy Austin with an end of June target date. The >timing will largely depend on what time is available from people >interested in resolving the situation. Mark and I will have some >availability for this work in June but not a great deal (about 2 >man-weeks total between us). If there are others who can step in and >help, it will help accelerate the process. > >Best regards, > >-Travis > > > >_______________________________________________ >NumPy-Discussion mailing list >NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org >http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
