[Numpy-discussion] Removing masked arrays for 1.7? (Was 1.7 blockers)

Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail....
Mon Apr 16 17:21:43 CDT 2012


On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:06 AM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io>wrote:

> There is an issue with the NumPy 1.7 release that we all need to
> understand.   Doesn't including the missing-data attributes in the NumPy
> structure in a released version of NumPy basically commit to including
> those attributes in NumPy 1.8?
>

We clearly labeled NA as experimental, so some changes are to be expected.
But not complete removal - so yes, if we release them they should stay in
some form.


>  I'm not comfortable with that, is everyone else?    One possibility is to
> move those attributes to a C-level sub-class of NumPy.
>

That's the first time I've heard this. Until now, we have talked a lot
about adding bitmasks and API changes, not about complete removal. My
assumption was that the experimental label was enough. From Nathaniel's
reaction I gathered the same. It looks like too many conversations on this
topic are happening off-list.

Ralf


> I have heard from a few people that they are not excited by the growth of
> the NumPy data-structure by the 3 pointers needed to hold the masked-array
> storage.   This is especially true when there is talk to potentially add
> additional attributes to the NumPy array (for labels and other
> meta-information).      If you are willing to let us know how you feel
> about this, please speak up.
>
> Mark Wiebe will be in Austin for about 3 months.  He and I will be hashing
> some of this out in the first week or two.    We will present any proposal
> and ask questions to this list before acting.     We will be using some
> phone calls and face-to-face communications to increase the bandwidth and
> speed of the conversations (not to exclude anyone).    If you would like to
> be part of the in-person discussions let me know -- or just make your views
> known here --- they will be taken seriously.
>
> The goal is consensus for any major change in NumPy.   If we can't get
> consensus, then we vote on this list and use a super-majority.   If we
> can't get a super-majority, then except in rare circumstances we can't move
> forward.    Heavy users of NumPy get higher voting privileges.
>
> My perspective is that we don't have consensus on the current additions to
> the NumPy data-structure to have the current additional attributes on the
> NumPy data-structure be included for long-term release.
>
> Best,
>
> -Travis
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 25, 2012, at 6:27 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 10:13 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> There several problems with numpy master that need to be fixed before a
>>> release can be considered.
>>>
>>>    1. Datetime on windows with mingw.
>>>    2. Bus error on SPARC, ticket #2076.
>>>    3. NA and real/complex views of complex arrays.
>>>
>>> Number 1 has been proved to be particularly difficult, any help or
>>> suggestions for that would be much appreciated. The current work has been
>>> going in pull request 214 <https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/214>.
>>>
>>> This isn't to say that there aren't a ton of other things that need
>>> fixing or that we can skip out on the current stack of pull requests, but I
>>> think it is impossible to consider a release while those three problems are
>>> outstanding.
>>>
>> Why do you consider (2) a blocker? Not saying it's not important, but
>> there are eight other open tickets with segfaults. Some are more esoteric
>> than other, but I don't see why for example #1713 and #1808 are less
>> important than this one.
>>
>> #1522 provides a patch that fixes a segfault by the way, could use a
>> review.
>>
>>
> I wasn't aware of the other segfaults, I'd like to get them all fixed...
> The list was meant to elicit additions.
>
> I don't know where the missed floating point errors come from, but they
> are somewhat dependent on the compiler doing the right thing and hardware
> support. I'd welcome any insight into why we get them on SPARC (underflow)
> and Windows (overflow). The windows buildbot doesn't seem to be updating
> correctly since it is still missing the combinations method that is now
> part of the test module.
>
> Chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20120417/0fecd258/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list