2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > > this by making missing data front-and-center. However, my belief is that > > Mark's approach is easier to comprehend and is cleaner. Cleaner features > > means that it is more likely to be used. > > Cleaner features may be easier to adopt, but whether they are used or > not depends on whether they address the problem in hand. The > implementation as it stands essentially gives us a faster and more > integrated version of numpy.ma; but it has become clear from this > conversation that such an approach overlooks a very common subset of > masked-related problems. > > Which are...? (given the history of this discussion, let's not assume anything is clear).
> We should be concerned about memory use; we often don't have too much > of it, and accessing it is slow. > > Would it be workable to store 8 mask bits per byte instead? I don't > think it should impact on the speed much, and we can always generate a > full mask for the user on request. > > I suggested such an idea a while back. This is part of the reason why Mark decided that the masks should not be exposed for direct access in case it is decided that masks could be implemented that way. I have a vague recollection of him commenting about some tests he did along that route, but I don't remember it. Cheers, Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
