[Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

Travis Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Tue Oct 25 21:56:26 CDT 2011

So, I am very interested in making sure I remember the details of the counterproposal.    What I recall is that you wanted to be able to differentiate between a "bit-pattern" mask and a boolean-array mask in the API.   I believe currently even when bit-pattern masks are implemented the difference will be "hidden" from the user on the Python level.  

I am sure to be missing other parts of the discussion as I have been in and out of it. 



On Oct 25, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:

> Hi,
> Thank you for your gracious email.
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
>> It is a shame that Nathaniel and perhaps Matthew do not feel like their
>> voice was heard.   I wish I could have participated more fully in some of
>> the discussions.  I don't know if I could have really helped, but I would
>> have liked to have tried to perhaps work alongside Mark to integrate some of
>> the other ideas that had been expressed during the discussion.
>> Unfortunately,  I was traveling in NYC most of the time that Mark was
>> working on this project and did not get a chance to interact with him as
>> much as I would have liked.
>> My view is that we didn't get quite to where I thought we would get, nor
>> where I think we could be.  I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very
>> specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of a
>> difficult problem.     In particular, I really wanted bit-patterns
>> implemented.    However, I also understand that Mark did quite a bit of work
>> and altered his original designs quite a bit in response to community
>> feedback.   I wasn't a major part of the pull request discussion, nor did I
>> merge the changes, but I support Charles if he reviewed the code and felt
>> like it was the right thing to do.  I likely would have done the same thing
>> rather than let Mark Wiebe's work languish.
>> Merging Mark's code does not mean there is not more work to be done, but it
>> is consistent with the reality that currently development on NumPy happens
>> when people have the time to do it.    I have not seen anything to convince
>> me that there is not still time to make specific API changes that address
>> some of the concerns.
>> Perhaps, Nathaniel and or Matthew could summarize their concerns again and
>> if desired submit a pull request to revert the changes.   However, there is
>> a definite bias against removing working code unless the arguments are very
>> strong and receive a lot of support from others.
> Honestly - I am not sure whether there is any interest now, in the
> arguments we made before.   If there is, who is interested?  I mean,
> past politeness.
> I wasn't trying to restart that discussion, because I didn't know what
> good it could do.   At first I was hoping that we could ask whether
> there was a better way of dealing with disagreements like this.
> Later it seemed to me that the atmosphere was getting bad, and I
> wanted to say that because I thought it was important.
>> Thank you for continuing to voice your opinions even when it may feel that
>> the tide is against you.   My view is that we only learn from people who
>> disagree with us.
> Thank you for saying that.   I hope that y'all will tell me if I am
> making it harder for you to disagree,  and I am sorry if I did so
> here.
> Best,
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Travis Oliphant
Enthought, Inc.

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list