Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Benjamin Root
> It should be possible to remove a mask when copying an array. > This was a concession on the part of those pushing for masks. Eventually, I ended up realizing that it resulted in a stronger design. Consider the following: foo(a[4:10]) Should function foo be able to access the rest of array "

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Han Genuit
There is a way to assign whole masks in the current implementation: >>> a = np.arange(9, maskna=True).reshape((3,3)) >>> a array([[0, 1, 2], [3, 4, 5], [6, 7, 8]]) >>> mask = np.array([[False, False, True], [False, True, False],

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Benjamin Root
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT from IGNORED is a good idea. I also like

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Travis Oliphant
As I mentioned. I find the ability to separate an ABSENT idea from an IGNORED idea convincing.In other words, I think distinguishing between masks and bit-patterns is not just an implementation detail, but provides a useful concept for multiple use-cases. I understand exactly what it woul

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Charles R Harris
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's > arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT from IGNORED is a > good idea. I also like being able to control SKIP and PROPAGATE (but I > think the cu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Travis Oliphant
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT from IGNORED is a good idea. I also like being able to control SKIP and PROPAGATE (but I think the current implementation allows this already). What is the count

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NA masks in the next numpy release?

2011-10-27 Thread Matthew Brett
Hi, On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > So, I am very interested in making sure I remember the details of the > counterproposal.    What I recall is that you wanted to be able to > differentiate between a "bit-pattern" mask and a boolean-array mask in the > API.   I belie

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread David Cournapeau
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 5:18 PM, wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of >> compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern >> the next release cycle, not the ones wh

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread Ralf Gommers
Hi David, On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:02 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of > compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern > the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in > progress.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread josef . pktd
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 9:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of > compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern > the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in > progress. > > Basica

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread David Cournapeau
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jim Vickroy wrote: > > Hi David, > > What is the "msvcr90 vodoo" you are referring to? gcc 3.* versions don't have stubs to link against recent versions of MS C runtime, so we have to build them by ourselves. 4.x series don't have this issue, cheers, David

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread Jim Vickroy
On 10/27/2011 7:02 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > Hi, > > I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of > compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern > the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in > progress. > > Basically, the pr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread David Cournapeau
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Peter wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of >> compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern >> the next release cycle, not the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread Peter
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 2:02 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > Hi, > > I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of > compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern > the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in > progress. > > Basi

[Numpy-discussion] Moving to gcc 4.* for win32 installers ?

2011-10-27 Thread David Cournapeau
Hi, I was wondering if we could finally move to a more recent version of compilers for official win32 installers. This would of course concern the next release cycle, not the ones where beta/rc are already in progress. Basically, the pros: - we will have to move at some point - gcc 4.* seem l