On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 02:35:26PM -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Basically it buys not forcing *all* NumPy users (on the C-API level) to > now deal with a masked array. I know this push is a feature that is > part of Mark's intention (as it pushes downstream libraries to think about > missing data at a fundamental level).
I think that this is a bad policy because: 1. An array is not always data. I realize that there is a big push for data-related computing lately, but I still believe that the notion missing data makes no sens for the majority of numpy arrays instanciated. 2. Not every algorithm can be made to work with missing data. I would even say that most of the advanced algorithm do not work with missing data. Don't try to force upon people a problem that they do not have :). Gael PS: This message does not claim to take any position in the debate on which solution for missing data is the best, because I don't think that I have a good technical vision to back any position. _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion