[Numpy-discussion] Warnings in numpy.ma.test()

josef.pktd@gmai... josef.pktd@gmai...
Thu Mar 18 14:32:58 CDT 2010


On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Gael Varoquaux
<gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:12:10PM -0700, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> sure -- that's kind of my point -- if EVERY numpy array were
>> (potentially) masked, then folks would write code to deal with them
>> appropriately.
>
> That's pretty much saying: "I have a complicated problem and I want every
> one else to have to deal with the full complexity of it, even if they
> have a simple problem". In my experience, such choice doesn't fair well,
> unless it is inside a controled codebase, and someone working on that
> codebase is ready to spend heaps of time working on that specific issue.

If the mask doesn't get quietly added during an operation, we would
need to keep out the masked arrays at the front door.
I worry about speed penalties for pure number crunching, although, if
nomask=True gives a fast path, then it might not be too much of a
problem.

ufuncs are simple enough, but for reduce operations and other more
complicated things (linalg, fft) the user would need to control how
missing values are supposed to be handled, which still requires
special treatment and "if mask" all over the place.

Josef


>
> Gaël
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list