[Numpy-discussion] in the NA discussion, what can we agree on?

[T J]

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:

> 04.11.2011 20:49, T J kirjoitti:
> [clip]
> > To push this forward a bit, can I propose that IGNORE behave as:   PnC
>
> The *n* classes can be a bit confusing in Python:
>
> ### PnC
>
>  >>> x = np.array([1, 2, 3])
>  >>> y = np.array([4, 5, 6])
>  >>> ignore(y[1])
>  >>> z = x + y
>  >>> z
> np.array([5, IGNORE(7), 9])
>  >>> x += y             # NB: x[1] := x[1] + y[1]
>  >>> x
> np.array([5, 2, 3])
>
>     ***
>
>
Interesting.


> I think I defined the "destructive" and "non-destructive" in a different
> way than earlier in the thread. Maybe this behavior from np.ma is closer
> to what was meant earlier:
>
>  >>> x = np.ma.array([1, 2, 3], mask=[0, 0, 1])
>  >>> y = np.ma.array([4, 5, 6], mask=[0, 1, 1])
>  >>> x += y
>  >>> x
> masked_array(data = [5 -- --],
>              mask = [False  True  True],
>        fill_value = 999999)
>  >>> x.data
> array([5, 2, 3])
>
>
> Let's call this (since I botched and already reserved the letter "n" :)
>
> (m) mark-ignored
>
> a := SPECIAL_1
> # -> a == SPECIAL_a ; the payload of the RHS is neglected,
> #                     the assigned value has the original LHS
> #                     as the payload
>
>
>
Does this behave as expected for "x + y" (as opposed to the inplace
operation)?

>>> z = x + y
>>> z
np.array([5, IGNORED(2), IGNORED(3)])
>>> x += y
np.array([5, IGNORED(2), IGNORED(3)])

However, doesn't this have the issue that Nathaniel brought up earlier:
commutativity

unignore(x + y) != unignore(y + x)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20111104/23aeb1e5/attachment.html