[Numpy-discussion] A crazy masked-array thought

Richard Hattersley rhattersley@gmail....
Fri Apr 27 05:32:40 CDT 2012


I know used a somewhat jokey tone in my original posting, but fundamentally
it was a serious question concerning a live topic. So I'm curious about the
lack of response. Has this all been covered before?

Sorry if I'm being too impatient!


On 25 April 2012 16:58, Richard Hattersley <rhattersley@gmail.com> wrote:

> The masked array discussions have brought up all sorts of interesting
> topics - too many to usefully list here - but there's one aspect I haven't
> spotted yet. Perhaps that's because it's flat out wrong, or crazy, or just
> too awkward to be helpful. But ...
>
> Shouldn't masked arrays (MA) be a superclass of the plain-old-array (POA)?
>
> In the library I'm working on, the introduction of MAs (via numpy.ma)
> required us to sweep through the library and make a fair few changes.
> That's not the sort of thing one would normally expect from the
> introduction of a subclass.
>
> Putting aside the ABI issue, would it help downstream API compatibility if
> the POA was a subclass of the MA? Code that's expecting/casting-to a POA
> might continue to work and, where appropriate, could be upgraded in their
> own time to accept MAs.
>
> Richard Hattersley
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20120427/84fb6cb4/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list