[Numpy-discussion] missing data discussion round 2

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Tue Jun 28 06:25:07 CDT 2011


On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>> That seems like a risky strategy to me, as the most likely outcome is
>> that people worried about memory will avoid masked arrays because they
>> know they use more memory.  The memory usage is predictable and we
>> won't learn any more about it from use.  We most of us already know if
>> we're having to optimize code for memory.
>> You won't get complaints, you'll just lose a group of users, who will,
>> I suspect, stick to NaNs, unsatisfactory as they are.
> This blade cuts both ways, we'd lose a group of users if we don't support
> masking semantics, too.

I didn't mean to agitate for my own use-case, I was only saying that
'implement masking, wait and see for na-dtype' was not a good strategy
for deciding.

> That said, Travis favors doing both, so there's a good chance there will be
> time for it.

That's very encouraging.  I hope I can contribute somehow when the
time comes, with review or some other way,

Thanks a lot,


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list