[Numpy-discussion] feedback request: proposal to add masks to the core ndarray
Charles R Harris
Thu Jun 23 17:14:32 CDT 2011
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:05, Charles R Harris
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Robert Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 17:02, Charles R Harris
> >> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Gael Varoquaux
> >> > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> >> Ufuncs need work, but I have
> >> >> the impression that your proposal is simply to solve the special case
> >> >> of
> >> >> masked data in the ufunc by breaking the simple numpy array model.
> >> >
> >> > I wonder how much of the complication could be located in the dtype.
> >> What dtype? There are no new dtypes in this proposal.
> > Not yet, there aren't.
> You're being cryptic. The entire point of the proposal seems to be to
> *avoid* new dtypes for the purpose of handling missing data. What are
> you trying to refer to?
I'm being sideways. I was just toying with the idea of masked dtypes. That
way some parts of mask handling go over into finding mutuallly compatible
types and arrays remain as collections of same sized bits of data.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion