Sun Oct 30 13:37:31 CDT 2011
On 10/29/11 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. It isn't like it is
> (known to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis
> on which build other options. It also smacks of gratuitous violence
> committed by someone yet to make a positive contribution to the project.
1) contributing to the discussion IS a positive contribution to the project.
2) If we use the term "ripping out" it does "smacks of gratuitous
violence" -- if we use the term "roll back", maybe not so much -- it's
not like the code couldn't be put back in.
That being said, I like the idea of it being easy and accessible for
not-very-familiar-with-git folks to test -- so I'd like to see it left
there for now at least.
On 10/29/11 3:47 PM, Eric Firing wrote:
> Similarly, in Marks implementation, 7 bits are available for a payload
> to describe what kind of masking is meant. This seems more consistent
> with True as masked (or NA) than with False as masked.
+1 -- we've got 8 bits, nice to be able to use them
On 10/29/11 3:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> I wouldn't rely on the 7 bits yet. Mark left them available to keep open
> possible future use, but didn't implement anything using them yet. If
> memory use turns out to exclude whole sectors of application we will
> have to go to bit masks.
would there have to be only one type of mask available?
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax
Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception
More information about the NumPy-Discussion