Hi All, *Disclaimer: I don't spend any hours actually maintaining Numpy, so please don't take my comments here with much weight.*
My gut reaction here is that if removing masked array allows Numpy to evolve more quickly then this excites me. It could be that a plan goes something like the following: 1. Remove masked array to a separate package, pin it to current versions of Numpy. 2. Evolve Numpy to the point where making new array types becomes attractive 3. Make a new masked array with that new functionality that doesn't have the problems of the current implementation Of course this is a simplistic view of the world, and it could also be that this triggers a forking event. However, hopefully it gets a general theme across though that there is value to allowing Numpy to move quickly, and that it might make sense for some feature-sets to miss out on that evolution for a time for the greater good of the ecosystem's evolution. -matt On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:08 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Stefan van der Walt > <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > > On May 23, 2018 14:28:05 Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> 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? > > > > > > I am not aware of any concrete plans, maybe others can chime in? > > > > It's a bit strange, the words that are used in this thread: "succession", > > "purification", "elimination", and "purge". I don't have my knife out for > > MaskedArrays; I merged a lot of Pierre's work myself. I simply suspect > there > > may be a better and more supporting home/project configuration for it, > > perhaps still under the NumPy umbrella. > > The NEP notes that MaskedArray imposes a significant maintenance > burden, as a motivation for removing it. I'm sure you'd predict that > the Numpy developers are likely to spend less time on it, if it moves > to its own package. I guess the hope would be that others would take > over, but is that likely? What if they don't? > > Would it be reasonable to develop an alternative plan for missing > arrays in concert with this NEP, maybe along the lines that Allan > mentioned, above? > > Cheers, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
