Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> You and I know that I've got an array with values [99, 100, 3] and a >> mask with values [False, False, True]. So maybe I'd like to see what >> happens if I take off the mask from the second value. I know that's >> what I want to do, but I don't know how to do it, because you won't >> let me manipulate the mask, because I'm not allowed to know that the >> NA values come from the mask. >> >> The alterNEP is just saying - please - be straight with me. If >> you're doing masking, show me the mask, and don't try and hide that >> there are stored values underneath. >> > > Considering that you have admitted before to not regularly using masked > arrays, I seriously doubt that you would be able to judge whether this is a > significant detriment or not. My entire point that I have been making is > that Mark's implementation is not the same as the current masked arrays. > Instead, it is a cleaner, more mature implementation that gets rid of > extraneous "features".
This may explain why we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I am sure that Mark's implementation of masking is great. We're not talking about that. We're talking about whether it's a good idea to make masking look as though it is implementing the ABSENT idea. That's what I think is confusing, and that's the conversation I have been trying to pursue. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
