On 6/27/11 9:53 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Some discussion of disk storage might also help. I don't see how the
rules can be enforced if two files are used, one for the mask and
another for the data, but that may just be something we need to live with.
It seems it wouldn't be too big deal to
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/29/2011 07:38 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no mailto:d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/29/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Maybe instead of np.NA, we could say np.IGNORE,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Mark Wiebe writes:
There seems to be a general idea that masks and NA bit patterns imply
particular differing semantics, something which I think is simply
false.
Well, my example contained a difference (the need for the
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 06/29/2011 09:32 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Clearly there are some overlaps between what masked arrays are trying
to achieve and what Rs NA mechanisms are trying to achieve. Are they
really similar
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm for the option of having a single API when you want to have NA
elements, regardless of whether it's using masks or bit patterns.
I understand the desire
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 1:49 AM, Chris Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On 6/27/11 9:53 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Some discussion of disk storage might also help. I don't see how the
rules can be enforced if two files are used, one for the mask and
another for the data, but that may
Clearly there are some overlaps between what masked arrays are
trying to achieve and what Rs NA mechanisms are trying to achieve.
Are they really similar enough that they should function using
the same API?
Yes.
And if so, won't that be confusing?
No, I don't
Mark Wiebe writes:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
[...]
As far as I can tell, the only required difference between them is
that NA bit patterns must destroy the data. Nothing else. Everything
on top of that is a choice of API and interface mechanisms. I
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Gary Strangman str...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
wrote:
Clearly there are some overlaps between what masked arrays are
trying to achieve and what Rs NA mechanisms are trying to achieve.
Are they really similar enough that they should function using
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Gary Strangman
str...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Clearly there are some overlaps between what masked arrays are
trying to achieve and what Rs NA mechanisms are trying to
Mark Wiebe writes:
Why is one magic and the other real? All of this is already
sitting on 100 layers of abstraction above electrons and atoms. If
we're talking about real, maybe we should be programming in machine
code or using breadboards with individual transistors.
M-x butterfly RET
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Gary Strangman
str...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu wrote:
Clearly there are some overlaps between what
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Mark Wiebe writes:
Why is one magic and the other real? All of this is already
sitting on 100 layers of abstraction above electrons and atoms. If
we're talking about real, maybe we should be programming in machine
code or
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
In addition, for new code, the full-blown masked array module may not be
needed. A convenience it adds, however, is the automatic masking of
invalid values:
In [1]: np.ma.log(-1)
Out[1]: masked
I'm sure this horrifies
On 06/30/2011 08:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Firingefir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
In addition, for new code, the full-blown masked array module may not be
needed. A convenience it adds, however, is the automatic masking of
invalid values:
In [1]:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 06/30/2011 08:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Eric Firingefir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
In addition, for new code, the full-blown masked array module may not be
needed. A convenience it adds,
On 06/28/2011 11:52 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
implementation using na-dtypes from the user's point of view. Except that
taking a masked
On 06/27/2011 05:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion
has helped clarify the ideas for me. I've renamed and updated the NEP,
then placed it into the master NumPy
Matthew Brett writes:
Maybe instead of np.NA, we could say np.IGNORE, which sort of conveys
the idea that the entry is still there, but we're just ignoring it. Of
course, that goes against common convention, but it might be easier to
explain.
I think Nathaniel's point is that np.IGNORE is
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you
On 06/29/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark Wiebemwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might
Matthew, Dag, +1.
On Jun 29, 2011 4:35 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no
wrote:
On 06/29/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark Wiebemwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/27/2011 05:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion
has helped
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Maybe instead of np.NA, we could say np.IGNORE, which sort of conveys
the idea that the entry is still there, but we're just ignoring it. Of
course, that goes against common convention, but it might be
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/29/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark Wiebemwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 06/29/2011 07:38 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no mailto:d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/29/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Mark
Mark Wiebe writes:
There seems to be a general idea that masks and NA bit patterns imply
particular differing semantics, something which I think is simply
false.
Well, my example contained a difference (the need for the skipna=True
argument) precisely because it seemed that there was some
On 06/29/2011 01:07 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
On 06/29/2011 07:38 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.nomailto:d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 06/29/2011 03:45 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Maybe instead of np.NA, we could say np.IGNORE, which sort of conveys
the idea that the entry is still there, but we're just
Oops,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Maybe instead of np.NA, we could say np.IGNORE,
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Mark Wiebe writes:
There seems to be a general idea that masks and NA bit patterns imply
particular differing semantics, something which I think is simply
false.
Well, my example contained a difference (the need for the
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Maybe instead of np.NA, we could say np.IGNORE,
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Lluís
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
I completely agree. What I'd suggest is a global and/or per-object
ndarray.flags.skipna for people like me that just want to ignore these
entries without caring about setting it on each operaion (or the other
way around, depends on
On 06/29/2011 09:32 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
[...]
Clearly there are some overlaps between what masked arrays are trying
to achieve and what Rs NA mechanisms are trying to achieve. Are they
really similar enough that they should function using the same API?
And if so, won't that be
Nathaniel Smith writes:
I know that the part 1 of that proposal would satisfy my needs, but I
don't know as much about your use case, so I'm curious. Would that
proposal (in particular, part 2, the classic masked-array part) work
for you?
I'm for the option of having a single API when you
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
I'm for the option of having a single API when you want to have NA
elements, regardless of whether it's using masks or bit patterns.
I understand the desire to avoid having two different APIS...
[snip]
My concern is now about how
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
...
That seems like a risky strategy to me, as the most likely outcome is
that people worried about memory will avoid masked arrays because they
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You won't get complaints, you'll just lose a group of users, who will,
I suspect, stick to NaNs, unsatisfactory as they are.
This blade cuts
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You won't get complaints, you'll just lose a group of users, who
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
implementation using na-dtypes from the user's point of view. Except that
taking a masked view of an unmasked array allows ignoring values
On 06/28/2011 07:26 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
implementation using na-dtypes from the user's point of view. Except that
taking a masked
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
I think you are exaggerating some of the differences associated with the
implementation, and ignoring one *key* difference: for integer types,
the masked implementation can handle the full numeric range of the type,
while
On Jun 28, 2011, at 9:41 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
One of the real frustrations of the present masked array is that there
is no savez/load support. I could roll my own by using a convention
like saving the mask of xxx as xxx__mask__, and then reversing the
process in a modified load; but I
All,
I'm not sure I understand some aspects of Mark's new proposal, sorry (blame the
lack of sleep).
I'm pretty excited with the idea of built-in NA like np.dtype(NA['float64']),
provided we can come with some shortcuts like np.nafloat64. I think that would
really take care of the missing data
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
implementation using na-dtypes from the user's point of view. Except that
taking a masked view of an unmasked array allows ignoring values
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 8:41 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 06/28/2011 07:26 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
implementation
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you *can* unmask an
item? Us missing data folks could just ignore this feature. But:
whatever we end up implementing is something that I will have to
explain over
On 6/28/11 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you *can* unmask an
item? Us missing data folks could just ignore this feature. But:
whatever we end up implementing is
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 6/28/11 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you *can* unmask an
item? Us
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Jason Grout jason-s...@creativetrax.comwrote:
On 6/28/11 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you *can* unmask an
item? Us
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You won't get complaints, you'll just lose a group of users, who
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 06/28/2011 07:26 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
implementation
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
I'm not sure I understand some aspects of Mark's new proposal, sorry (blame
the lack of sleep).
I'm pretty excited with the idea of built-in NA like
np.dtype(NA['float64']), provided we can come with some shortcuts
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you *can* unmask an
item? Us missing data folks could just ignore this feature.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
On 6/28/11 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smithn...@pobox.com wrote:
...
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've nearly finished this parameter, and decided to call it 'where' instead,
because it is operating like an SQL where clause. Here if neither a nor b
are masked array it will only modify those values of b where the 'where'
On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that would really take care of the missing data part in a consistent
and non-ambiguous way.
However, I understand that if a choice would be made, this
On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:39 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You might think, what difference does it make if you *can* unmask an
item? Us
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
I've nearly finished this parameter, and decided to call it 'where'
instead,
because it is operating like an SQL where clause. Here if neither a nor b
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:37 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
...
I think that would really take care of the missing data part in a
consistent and
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 29, 2011, at 1:39 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
...
(You
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion has
helped clarify the ideas for me. I've renamed and updated the NEP, then
placed it into the master NumPy repository so it has a more permanent home
here:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion has
helped clarify the ideas for me. I've renamed and updated the NEP, then
placed
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion has
helped clarify the ideas for me. I've renamed and updated the NEP, then
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion has
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 6:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:44 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:59 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, eat e.antero.ta...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27,
On Jun 27, 2011, at 9:59 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
Just a question how things would work with the new model.
How can you implement the use keyword from R's cov (or cor), with
minimal data copying
I think the basic masked array version would (or does) just assign 0
to the missing
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Keith Goodman kwgood...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
First I'd like to thank everyone for all the feedback you're providing,
clearly this is an important topic to many people, and the discussion has
76 matches
Mail list logo
