On 07/06/2011 07:51 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
On Jul 7, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
On 07/06/2011 07:51 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get the
On 07/07/2011 07:51 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have different
definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared up, I
feel the design process is tilting at windmills.
In the interests of
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have different
definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared up,
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have different
definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people have
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark
Ah, semantics...
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
NA (Not Available)
A placeholder for a value which is unknown to computations. That
value may be temporarily hidden with a mask, may have been lost
due to hard drive corruption, or gone for any number of reasons.
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Peter
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been
talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been
talking
past each other in the discussions is that different people
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, semantics...
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
NA (Not Available)
A placeholder for a value which is unknown to computations. That
value may be temporarily hidden with a mask, may have been
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker chris.bar...@noaa.govwrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent.
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Christopher Jordan-Squire cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
Mark Wiebe
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Christopher Jordan-Squire cjord...@uw.edu
wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett
(snip discussion of open kimono)
On the other hand, to try and conceal these implementation
differences, seems to me to break my feeling for numpy arrays, and
make me feel I have an object that is rather magic, that I don't fully
understand, and for which clever stuff is going on, under the
On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
ignoring it? Maybe that's not inherent to what an
26 matches
Mail list logo
