On 7/3/11 9:03 PM, Joe Harrington wrote: > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. wrote >> quick note on this: I like the "FALSE == good" way, because: > > So, you like to have multiple different kinds of masked, but I need > multiple good values for counts.
fair enough, maybe there isn't a consensus about what is best, or most common, interpretation. However, I was thinking less "different kinds of masks" than, "something special" -- so if there is ANY additional information about a given element, it has a non-zero value. so less "FALSE == good", then "FALSE == raw_value" seems like the cleanest way to do it. That having been said, I generally DON'T like the "zero is false" convention -- I wish that Python actually required a Boolean where one was called, for, rather that being able to pass in zero or any-other-value. Speaking of which, would we make the NA value be false? -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion