Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > Matt, > > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Forget about rudeness or decision processes. >> >> No, that's a common mistake, which is to assume that any conversation >> about things which aren't technical, is not important. Nathaniel's >> point is important. Rudeness is important. The reason we've got into >> this mess is because we clearly don't have an agreed way of making >> decisions. That's why countries and open-source projects have >> constitutions, so this doesn't happen. > > Don't get me wrong. In general, you are right. And maybe we all should > discuss something to that effect for numpy. But I would rather do that when > there isn't such contention and tempers.
That's a reasonable point. > As for allegations of rudeness, I believe that we are actually very close to > consensus that I immediately wanted to squelch any sort of > meta-meta-disagreements about who was being rude to who. As a quick > band-aide, anybody who felt slighted by me gets a drink on me at the next > scipy conference. From this point on, let's institute a 10 minute rule -- > write your email, wait ten minutes, read it again and edit it. Good offer. I make the same one. >>> I will start by saying that I am willing to separate ignore and absent, >>> but >>> only on the write side of things. On read, I want a single way to >>> identify >>> the missing values. I also want only a single way to perform >>> calculations >>> (either skip or propagate). >> >> Thank you - that is very helpful. >> >> Are you saying that you'd be OK setting missing values like this? >> >>>>> a.mask[0:2] = False >> > > Probably not that far, because that would be an attribute that may or may > not exist. Rather, I might like the idea of a NA to "always" mean absent > (and destroys - even through views), and MA (or some other name) which > always means ignore (and has the masking behavior with views). This makes > specific behaviors tied distinctly to specific objects. Ah - yes - thank you. I think you and I at least have somewhere to go for agreement, but, I don't know how to work towards a numpy-wide agreement. Do you have any thoughts? >> For the read side, do you mean you're OK with this >> >>>>> a.isna() >> >> To identify the missing values, as is currently the case? Or something >> else? >> > > Yes. A missing value is a missing value, regardless of it being absent or > marked as ignored. But it is a bit more subtle than that. I should just be > able to add two arrays together and the "data should know what to do". When > the core ufuncs get this right (like min, max, sum, cumsum, diff, etc), then > I don't have to do much to prepare higher level funcs for missing data. > >> If so, then I think we're very close, it's just a discussion about names. >> > > And what does ignore + absent equals. ;-) ignore + absent == special_value_of_some_sort :) Just joking, See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion