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

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Fri Oct 28 15:22:28 CDT 2011


On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> You and I know that I've got an array with values [99, 100, 3] and a
>> mask with values [False, False, True].  So maybe I'd like to see what
>> happens if I take off the mask from the second value.   I know that's
>> what I want to do, but I don't know how to do it, because you won't
>> let me manipulate the mask, because I'm not allowed to know that the
>> NA values come from the mask.
>> The alterNEP is just saying - please - be straight with me.   If
>> you're doing masking, show me the mask, and don't try and hide that
>> there are stored values underneath.
> Considering that you have admitted before to not regularly using masked
> arrays, I seriously doubt that you would be able to judge whether this is a
> significant detriment or not.  My entire point that I have been making is
> that Mark's implementation is not the same as the current masked arrays.
> Instead, it is a cleaner, more mature implementation that gets rid of
> extraneous "features".

This may explain why we don't seem to be getting anywhere.  I am sure
that Mark's implementation of masking is great.   We're not talking
about that.  We're talking about whether it's a good idea to make
masking look as though it is implementing the ABSENT idea.   That's
what I think is confusing, and that's the conversation I have been
trying to pursue.



More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list