On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > > I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead: > a.mask[0:2] = True?
That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's implementation. I can live with either, but I much prefer the numpy.ma version because it fits with the use of bit-flags for editing data; set bit 1 if it fails check A, set bit 2 if it fails check B, etc. So, if it evaluates as True, there is a problem, and the value is masked *out*. Similarly, in Marks implementation, 7 bits are available for a payload to describe what kind of masking is meant. This seems more consistent with True as masked (or NA) than with False as masked. Eric > > It's something that I actually find a bit difficult to get right in the > current numpy.ma <http://numpy.ma> implementation: I would find more > intuitive to have True for "valid" data, and False for invalid / missing > / ... I realize how the implementation makes sense (and is appropriate > given that the name is "mask"), but I just thought I'd point this out... > even if it's just me ;) > > -=- Olivier > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
