[Numpy-discussion] in the NA discussion, what can we agree on?
Pauli Virtanen
pav@iki...
Sat Nov 5 05:57:58 CDT 2011
Hi,
05.11.2011 03:43, T J kirjoitti:
[clip]
> I thought that "PdC" satisfied (a) and (b).
> Let me show you what I thought they were. Perhaps I am not being
> consistent. If so, point out my mistake.
Yes, propagating + destructive assigment + do-computations-on-payload
should satisfy (a) and (b). (NA also works as it's a singleton.)
The question is now that are there other rules, with more desirable
behavior of masked values, that also have
a += b
a += 42
print unmask(a)
and
a += 42
a += b
print unmask(a)
as equivalent operations.
The rules chosen by np.ma don't satisfy this. If taking a commutative
version of np.ma's binary op rules, it seems that it's not clear how to
make assignment work exactly in the way you'd expect of masked values
while retaining equivalence in the above code.
It seems that having `a += b` have `a[j]` unchanged if it's ignored, and
having ignored values propagate creates the problem.
--
Pauli Virtanen
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list