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],
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 a,
Yes, to further iterate on that, you can also create multiple masked
views with each its own mask properties. It would be ambiguous to mix
a bit-pattern NA together with standard NA's in the same mask, but you
can make different specialized masked views on the same data.
Also, I like the short
Hi all,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
I understand exactly what it would take to add bit-patterns to NumPy. I
also understand what Mark did and agree that it is possible to add Matthew's
idea to the current code-base. I think it is worth
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:45:09AM +0200, Han Genuit wrote:
Also, I like the short and concise abbreviation for 'Not Applicable',
NA. It has more common uses than IGNORE.
(See also here:
http://www.johndcook.com/R_language_for_programmers.html#missing)
That's a very R centric point a view:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.comwrote:
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
On 10/27/11 7:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
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
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Chris.Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On 10/27/11 7:51 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
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
I wonder if that might be handled as a scikits-image extension, rather
than core numpy?
I think Stefan and Nathaniel and Gary Strangman and others are saying
we don't want to pay the price of a large memory hike for masking. I
suspect that Nathaniel is right, and that a large majority of
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Gary Strangman str...@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
wrote:
I wonder if that might be handled as a scikits-image extension, rather
than core numpy?
I think Stefan and Nathaniel and Gary Strangman and others are saying
we don't want to pay the price of a large
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris
I haven't actually tested the code, but AFAIK the following is a short overview
with examples of how the two orthogonal feature axis (ABSENT/IGNORE and
PROPAGATE/SKIP) are related and how it all is supposed to work.
I have never talked to Mark or anybody else in this list (that is, outside of
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
this by making missing data front-and-center. However, my belief is that
Mark's approach is easier to comprehend and is cleaner. Cleaner features
means that it is more likely to be used.
Cleaner features may be easier to
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
this by making missing data front-and-center. However, my belief is that
Mark's approach is easier to comprehend and is cleaner. Cleaner features
means that it is more
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Summarizing: let's forget for a moment that mask has a meaning in english:
This is at the core of the problem. You and I know what's really
going on - there's a mask over the data. But in what follows we're
going to try and
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
The
implementation as it stands essentially gives us a faster and more
integrated version of numpy.ma; but it has become clear from this
conversation that such an approach
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
You and I know that I've got an array with values [99, 100, 3] and a
mask with values [False, False, True]. So maybe I'd like to see what
happens if I take off the mask from the second value. I know that's
what I
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
Considering that you have admitted before to not regularly using masked
arrays, I seriously doubt that you would be able to judge whether this is a
significant detriment or not.
Let's not be unreasonable; Matthew has a valid
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You and I know that I've got an array with values [99, 100, 3] and a
mask with values [False, False, True]. So maybe I'd like to see what
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
The
implementation as it stands essentially gives us a faster and more
integrated version of numpy.ma; but it has
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You and I know that I've got an array with values
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Matthew Brett
On 10/28/11 11:37 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
The main motivation for the alterNEP was our strong feeling that
separating ABSENT and IGNORE was easier to comprehend and cleaner.
I don't know about easier to comprehend, or cleaner, but it is more
feature-full.
I see two issues here:
1) being
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Chris.Barker chris.bar...@noaa.gov wrote:
On 10/28/11 11:37 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
The main motivation for the alterNEP was our strong feeling that
separating ABSENT and IGNORE was easier to comprehend and cleaner.
I don't know about easier to comprehend,
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Memory use is a known problem. One way to start addressing it might be to
implement a bit arraytype. It might even be possible to prototype that on
top of the existing types. Views make bit arrays a bit more
2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt ste...@sun.ac.za
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Memory use is a known problem. One way to start addressing it might be to
implement a bit arraytype. It might even be possible to prototype that
on
top of
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com 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
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
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.comwrote:
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
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
On Thursday, October 27, 2011, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com
wrote:
That is a pretty good explanation. I find myself convinced by Matthew's
arguments.I think that being able to separate ABSENT
There is also:
Missing/accumulating data
http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2011-July/057406.html
An NA compromise idea -- many-NA
http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2011-July/057408.html
NEPaNEP lessons - was: alterNEP
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 7:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com 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
Well, if I may have a say, I think that an open source project is
especially open when users as developers can contribute to the code
base and can participate in discussions on how to improve the existing
designs and ideas. I do not think a project is open when it crumbles
down into politics.. I
Matthew Brett writes:
I'm afraid I find this whole thread very unpleasant.
I have the odd impression of being back at high school. Some of the
big kids are pushing me around and then the other kids join in.
It didn't have to be this way.
Someone could have replied like this to Nathaniel:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
I'm afraid I find this whole thread very unpleasant.
I have the odd impression of being back at high school. Some of the
big kids are pushing me around and then the other kids join in.
It didn't have
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
I'm afraid I find this whole thread very unpleasant.
I have the odd impression of being back at high school. Some of the
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
I'm afraid I find this whole thread very
Matthew Brett writes:
[...]
If we do value constructive disagreement then we'll go out of our way
to talk through the points of contention, and make sure that the
people who disagree, especially the minority, feel that they have been
fully heard.
If we don't value constructive disagreement
It is a shame that Nathaniel and perhaps Matthew do not feel like their voice
was heard. I wish I could have participated more fully in some of the
discussions. I don't know if I could have really helped, but I would have
liked to have tried to perhaps work alongside Mark to integrate some
Hi,
Thank you for your gracious email.
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant oliph...@enthought.com wrote:
It is a shame that Nathaniel and perhaps Matthew do not feel like their
voice was heard. I wish I could have participated more fully in some of
the discussions. I don't
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 believe currently even when bit-pattern masks are implemented the
On 10/25/2011 04:56 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 believe currently even when
Nathaniel Smith writes:
[...]
Is the idea to continue the discussion and rework the API while it is in
master, delaying the next release for as long as it takes to achieve
consensus?
Well, for those who missed it, I think the first thing to do should be to
carefully read and discuss the
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
like. And in this case I do think we can come up with an API that will
make everyone happy, but
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
like. And
24.10.2011 16:40, Charles R Harris kirjoitti:
[clip]
The missing data functionality looks far more like R than numpy.ma
... and masked arrays must be explicitly requested by the user [1].
The MA stuff can leak through only if the user makes use of a library
that returns masked results (or
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Firing
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Wes McKinney wesmck...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Wes
Charles R Harris writes:
[...]
It might useful to have a way of setting global defaults, or something like a
with statement. These are the sort of things that can be adjusted based on
experience. For instance, I'm thinking skipna=1 is the natural default for the
masked arrays.
I already
Hi all,
I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to
have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft
release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline
without any discussion on the list seems to contradict what what
Travis wrote in July,
23.10.2011 20:21, Nathaniel Smith kirjoitti:
I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to
have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft
release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline
without any discussion on the list seems to
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to
have been merged into numpy master and is described
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
I was surprised today to notice
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
I was surprised today to notice that Mark's NA mask support appears to
have been merged into numpy master and is described in the draft
release notes[1]. My surprise is because merging it to mainline
without any
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:21 AM,
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett
On 10/23/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 20:58, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think this email might be a plea to the numpy steering group, and to
Travis in particular, to see if we can use a discussion of
On Sunday, October 23, 2011, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
I think this email might be a plea to the numpy steering group,
On 10/23/2011 10:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
But I (and presumably others) were unaware of the pull request,
because it turns out that actually Mark did*not* point to the pull
request, at least in email to either me or numpy-discussion. As far as
I can tell, the first time that pull request
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Sunday, October 23, 2011, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Matthew Brett
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
Ultimately, though, the numpy core developers must decide what goes in
and what does not. Consensus is desirable but may not always be
possible or optimal, especially if consensus is interpreted as
unanimity. There is a
On 10/23/2011 12:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
like. And in this case I do think we can come up with an API that will
make everyone happy, but that Mark's current API probably can't be
incrementally evolved to become that API.)
No one could object to coming up with an API that makes everyone
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:07 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 10/23/2011 12:34 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
like. And in this case I do think we can come up with an API that will
make everyone happy, but that Mark's current API probably can't be
incrementally evolved to become that
67 matches
Mail list logo
