I know used a somewhat jokey tone in my original posting, but fundamentally it was a serious question concerning a live topic. So I'm curious about the lack of response. Has this all been covered before?
Sorry if I'm being too impatient! On 25 April 2012 16:58, Richard Hattersley <rhatters...@gmail.com> wrote: > The masked array discussions have brought up all sorts of interesting > topics - too many to usefully list here - but there's one aspect I haven't > spotted yet. Perhaps that's because it's flat out wrong, or crazy, or just > too awkward to be helpful. But ... > > Shouldn't masked arrays (MA) be a superclass of the plain-old-array (POA)? > > In the library I'm working on, the introduction of MAs (via numpy.ma) > required us to sweep through the library and make a fair few changes. > That's not the sort of thing one would normally expect from the > introduction of a subclass. > > Putting aside the ABI issue, would it help downstream API compatibility if > the POA was a subclass of the MA? Code that's expecting/casting-to a POA > might continue to work and, where appropriate, could be upgraded in their > own time to accept MAs. > > Richard Hattersley >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
