On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 23:48 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 17:33 -0400, Allan Haldane wrote:
<snip> > > If we do not plan to replace it within numpy, we need to discuss a > bit > how it might affect infrastructure (multiple implementations....). > > There is the other discussion about how to replace it. By opening > up/creating new masked dtypes or similar (cool but unclear how > complex/long term) or `__array_ufunc__` based (relatively simple, > will > get rid of the nastier hacks that are currently needed). > > Or even both, just on different time scales? > I also somewhat like the idea of taking it out (once we have a first replacement) in the case that we have a plan to do a better/lower level replacement at a later point within numpy. Removal generally has its merits, but if a (mid term) replacement will come in any case, it would be nice to get those started first if possible. Otherwise downstream might end up having to fix up things twice. - Sebastian > My first gut feeling about the proposal is: I love the idea to get > rid > of it... but lets not do it, it does feel like it makes too much > infrastructure unclear. > > - Sebastian > > > > > > Allan > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion