[Numpy-discussion] missing data discussion round 2

Nathaniel Smith njs@pobox....
Tue Jun 28 12:26:36 CDT 2011

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an
> implementation using na-dtypes from the user's point of view. Except that
> taking a masked view of an unmasked array allows ignoring values without
> destroying or copying the original data.

Charles, I know that :-).

But if that view thing is an advertised feature -- in fact, the key
selling point for the masking-based implementation, included
specifically to make a significant contingent of users happy -- then
it's certainly user-visible. And it will make other users unhappy,
like I said. That's life.

But who cares? My main point is that implementing a missing data
solution and a separate masked array solution is probably less work
than implementing a single everything-to-everybody solution *anyway*,
*and* it might make both sets of users happier too. Notice that in my
proposal, there's really nothing there that isn't already in Mark's
NEP in some form or another, but in my version there's almost no
overlap between the two features. That's not because I was trying to
make them artificially different; it's because I tried to think of the
most natural ways to satisfy each set of use cases, and they're just

-- Nathaniel

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list