On 05/23/2018 04:02 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > Bad or missing values (and situations where one wants to use a mask to > operate on a subset of an array) are found in many domains of real life; > do you really want python users in those domains to have to fall back on > Matlab-style reliance on nans and/or manual mask manipulations, as the > new maskedarray package is sidelined?
I also think that missing value support is important to include inside numpy, just as it is included in other numerical packages like R and Julia. The time is ripe to write a new and better MaskedArray, because __array_ufunc__ exists now. With some other numpy devs a few months ago we also played with rewriting MA using __array_ufunc__ and fixing up all the bugs and inconsistencies we have discovered over time (eg, getting rid of the Masked constant). Both Eric and I started working on some code changes, but never submitted PRs. See a little bit of discussion here (there was some more elsewhere I can't find now): https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/9792#issuecomment-333346420 As I say there, numpy's current MA support is pretty poor compared to R - Wes McKinney partly justified his desire to move pandas away from numpy because of it. We have a lot to gain by implementing it nicely. We already have an NEP discussing possible ways forward: https://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy-1.14.0/neps/missing-data.html I was pretty excited by discussion above, and still am. I want to get back to it after I finish more immediate priorities - finishing printing/loading/saving fixes and structured array fixes. But Masked-Array-2 is on my list of desired long-term enhancements for numpy. Allan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
