Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers > <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers >>> <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> >> <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett >>> >> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Hi, >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris >>> >> >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> No, that's not what Nathaniel and I are saying at all. Nathaniel was >>> >> >> pointing to links for projects that care that everyone agrees before >>> >> >> they go ahead. >>> >> > >>> >> > It looked to me like there was a serious intent to come to an >>> >> > agreement, >>> >> > or >>> >> > at least closer together. The discussion in the summer was going >>> >> > around >>> >> > in >>> >> > circles though, and was too abstract and complex to follow. Therefore >>> >> > Mark's >>> >> > choice of implementing something and then asking for feedback made >>> >> > sense >>> >> > to >>> >> > me. >>> >> >>> >> I should point out that the implementation hasn't - as far as I can >>> >> see - changed the discussion. The discussion was about the API. >>> >> >>> >> Implementations are useful for agreed APIs because they can point out >>> >> where the API does not make sense or cannot be implemented. In this >>> >> case, the API Mark said he was going to implement - he did implement - >>> >> at least as far as I can see. Again, I'm happy to be corrected. >>> > >>> > Implementations can also help the discussion along, by allowing people >>> > to >>> > try out some of the proposed changes. It also allows to construct >>> > examples >>> > that show weaknesses, possibly to be solved by an alternative API. Maybe >>> > you >>> > can hold the complete history of this topic in your head and comprehend >>> > it, >>> > but for me it would be very helpful if someone said: >>> > - here's my dataset >>> > - this is what I want to do with it >>> > - this is the best I can do with the current implementation >>> > - here's how API X would allow me to solve this better or simpler >>> > This can be done much better with actual data and an actual >>> > implementation >>> > than with a design proposal. You seem to disagree with this statement. >>> > That's fine. I would hope though that you recognize that concrete >>> > examples >>> > help people like me, and construct one or two to help us out. >>> That's what use-cases are for in designing APIs. There are examples >>> of use in the NEP: >>> >>> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/doc/neps/missing-data.rst >>> >>> the alterNEP: >>> >>> https://gist.github.com/1056379 >>> >>> and my longer email to Travis: >>> >>> >>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/46544/match=ignored >>> >>> Mark has done a nice job of documentation: >>> >>> http://docs.scipy.org/doc/numpy/reference/arrays.maskna.html >>> >>> If you want to understand what the alterNEP case is, I'd suggest the >>> email, just because it's the most recent and I think the terminology >>> is slightly clearer. >>> >>> Doing the same examples on a larger array won't make the point easier >>> to understand. The discussion is about what the right concepts are, >>> and you can help by looking at the snippets of code in those >>> documents, and deciding for yourself whether you think the current >>> masking / NA implementation seems natural and easy to explain, or >>> rather forced and difficult to explain, and then email back trying to >>> explain your impression (which is not always easy). >> >> If you seriously believe that looking at a few snippets is as helpful and >> instructive as being able to play around with them in IPython and modify >> them, then I guess we won't make progress in this part of the discussion. >> You're just telling me to go back and re-read things I'd already read. > > The snippets are in ipython or doctest format - aren't they?
Oops - 10 minute rule. Now I see that you mean that you can't experiment with the alternative implementation without working code. That's true, but I am hoping that the difference between - say: a[0:2] = np.NA and a.mask[0:2] = False would be easy enough to imagine. If it isn't then, let me know, preferably with something like "I can't see exactly how the following [code snippet] would work in your conception of the problem" - and then I can either try and give fake examples, or write a mock up. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion