Hi,
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On May 23, 2018 13:25:44 Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> wrote: > >> On 2018/05/23 9:06 AM, Matti Picus wrote: >> I understand at least some of the motivation and potential advantages, >> but as it stands, I find this NEP highly alarming. > > > I am not at my computer right now, so I will respond in more detail later. > But I wanted to address your statement above: > > I see a NEP as an opportunity to discuss and flesh out an idea, and I > certainly hope that you there's no reason for alarm. > > I do not expect to know whether this is a good idea before discussions > conclude, so I appreciate your feedback. If we cannot find good support for > the idea, with very specific benefits, it should simply be dropped. > > But, I think there's a lot to learn from the conversation in the meantime > w.r.t. exactly how streamlined people want NumPy to be, how core > functionality can perhaps be strengthened by becoming a customer of our own > API, how to optimally maintain sub-components, etc. Can I ask what the plans are for supporting missing values, inside or outside numpy? Is there are successor to MaskedArray - and is this part of the succession plan? Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
