On 10/29/11 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. 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.
1) contributing to the discussion IS a positive contribution to the project. 2) If we use the term "ripping out" it does "smacks of gratuitous violence" -- if we use the term "roll back", maybe not so much -- it's not like the code couldn't be put back in. That being said, I like the idea of it being easy and accessible for not-very-familiar-with-git folks to test -- so I'd like to see it left there for now at least. On 10/29/11 3:47 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > 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. +1 -- we've got 8 bits, nice to be able to use them On 10/29/11 3:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > I wouldn't rely on the 7 bits yet. Mark left them available to keep open > possible future use, but didn't implement anything using them yet. If > memory use turns out to exclude whole sectors of application we will > have to go to bit masks. would there have to be only one type of mask available? -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion