[Numpy-discussion] feedback request: proposal to add masks to the core ndarray
Thu Jun 23 18:14:16 CDT 2011
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Charles R Harris <email@example.com
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Mark Wiebe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Pierre GM <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Jun 23, 2011, at 11:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>> firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Mark Wiebe <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> > Enthought has asked me to look into the "missing data" problem and how
>>> NumPy could treat it better. I've considered the different ideas of adding
>>> dtype variants with a special signal value and masked arrays, and concluded
>>> that adding masks to the core ndarray appears is the best way to deal with
>>> the problem in general.
>>> > I've written a NEP that proposes a particular design, viewable here:
>>> Mmh, after timeseries, now masked arrays... Mark, I start to see a
>>> pattern here ;)
>> I think it speaks to what's on Enthought's mind, in any case. :)
> What is the thinking at Enthought about this? I sense a meeting in the
> background and it would be nice to know what the motivations were.
A lot of these things were discussed at the DataArray summit they held here
a while ago, but the general push is towards being more approachable and
friendly to people who use R or do statistical data analysis on possibly
messy data. I don't use R, but I think I'm fairly good at producing things
which are both powerful and intuitive in the end, which is what I'm trying
to do here. That's my understanding of the thinking, others at Enthought
will have to correct me if I'm wrong...
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion