Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett >>> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> > >>> > Indeed. >>> > >>> >> >>> >> 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. >>> > >>> > It is in this case. I agree the explicit ``a.mask`` is clearer. This is >>> > a >>> > quite specific point that could be improved in the current >>> > implementation. >>> >>> Thanks - this is helpful. >>> >>> > It doesn't require ripping everything out. >>> >>> Nathaniel wasn't proposing 'ripping everything out' - but backing off >>> until consensus has been reached. That's different. If you think >>> we should not do that, and you are interested, please say why. >>> Second - I was proposing that we do indeed keep the code in the >>> codebase but discuss adaptations that could achieve consensus. >>> >> >> I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. > > You are repeating the loaded phrase 'ripping the current code out' and > thus making the discussion less sensible and more hostile. > >> It isn't like it is (known >> to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis on which >> build other options. It also smacks of gratuitous violence committed by >> someone yet to make a positive contribution to the project. > > This is cheap, rude, and silly. All I can see from Nathaniel is a > reasonable, fair attempt to discuss the code. He proposed backing off > the code in good faith. You are emphatically, and, in my view > childishly, ignoring the substantial points he is making, and > asserting over and over that he deserves no hearing because he has not > contributed code. This is a terribly destructive way to work. If I > was a new developer reading this, I would conclude, that I had better > be damn careful which side I'm on, before I express my opinion, > otherwise I'm going to be made to feel like I don't exist by the other > people on the project. That is miserable, it is silly, and it's the > wrong way to do business.
I conclude that it's bad to drink this much coffee in an afternoon, and that the next time I visit my friend's house, I'll take some decaf. Sorry Chuck - you're right - this was too personal. I do disagree with you, but I was rude here and I am sorry. I owe you an expensive drink, as per Ben's excellent suggestion. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
