> > Mind, Mark only had a few weeks to write code. I think the unfinished state > is a direct function of that. > > I have heard from several users that they will *not use the missing data* in > NumPy as currently implemented, and I can now see why. For better or for > worse, my approach to software is generally very user-driven and very > pragmatic. On the other hand, I'm also a mathematician and appreciate the > cognitive compression that can come out of well-formed structure. > None-the-less, I'm an *applied* mathematician and am ultimately motivated by > applications. > > > I think that would be Wes. I thought the current state wasn't that far away > from what he wanted in the only post where he was somewhat explicit. I think > it would be useful for him to sit down with Mark at some time and thrash > things out since I think there is some misunderstanding involved. >
Actually it wasn't Wes. It was 3 other people. I'm already well aware of Wes's perspective and actually think his concerns have been handled already. Also, the person who showed me their use-case was a new user. But, your point about getting people together is well-taken. I also recognize the fact that there have been (and likely continue to be) misunderstandings on multiple fronts. Fortunately, many of us will be at PyCon later this week. We tried really hard to get Mark Wiebe here this weekend as well --- but he could only sacrifice a week away from his degree work to join us for PyCon. It would be great if you could come to PyCon as well. Perhaps we can apply to NumFOCUS for a travel grant to bring NumPy developers together with other interested people to finish the masked array design and implementation. -Travis
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
