On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Travis Oliphant <[email protected]>wrote:
> > On May 20, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Travis Oliphant <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >> > My own plan for the near term would be as follows: >> > >> > 1) Put in the experimental option and get the 1.7 release out. This >> gets us through the next couple of months and keeps things moving. >> > >> >> The "experimental" option does not solve the problem which is that the >> ndarray object now has masked fields which changes the fundamental nature >> of an ndarray for a lot of downstream users that really have no idea what >> has just happened. I don't see how this has been addressed by any >> proposal except for the one I have suggested which allows a masked array >> object and a regular ndarray to co-exist for a time. I doubt that the >> proposal actually helps get 1.7 out any faster either as there are multiple >> experimental APIs that would have to be created to pull it off on both the >> C and Python level. >> > > So, remove them in 1.8 and try something else. With experimental (say in > site.cfg), the base array could even be different. I don't see the problem > here. Think big. > > > I don't think I understand your mental model of this. Are you saying > add an experimental flag at the C-level (essentially a #define that > eliminates any code involving masked arrays unless the define is made at > compile time?) > > It seems like just applying Nathaniel's patch would be a better approach. > Do so then. Otherwise I am going to fork. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
