On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > Matthew, the problem I have is that it seems that you and Nathaniel won't be > satisfied unless things are done *your* way.
Hi Charles, I'm sorry if I've given this impression, and I know it's easy to feel this way in a contentious discussion. I've even been tempted to conclude the same about you, based on some of those emails in the last discussion where you told us that we should only give feedback by critiquing specific paragraphs of Mark's docs, even though our issues were with the whole architecture he was suggesting. But I'd like to believe that that isn't true of you, and in return, I can only point out the following things: 1) I've actually made a number of different suggestions and attempts to find ways to compromise (e.g., the "NA concepts" discussion, the alter-NEP that folded in a design for "ignored" values to try and satisfy that constituency even though I wouldn't use them myself, and on the conference call trying to find a subset of features that we could all agree on to implement first). I don't *want* my proposals implemented unless everyone else finds them persuasive. 2) This is why in my message I'm *not* advocating that we implement NAs according to my proposals; I'm advocating that you get just as much of a veto power on my proposals as I do on yours. Let's be honest: we both know all else being equal, we'd both rather not deal with the other right now, and might prefer not to hang out socially. But if we want this NA stuff to actually work and be used, then we need to find a way to work together despite that. Peace? -- Nathaniel _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
