On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 07/01/2011 06:40 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
BTW, you can't access the memory of a masked value by taking a view,
at least if I'm reading this version of the NEP
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. If we have masked array support at
all (and some people seem to want it), then we have to say more than
it's an array with a mask. Indexing such a beast has to do
*something*, so we need
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean here. If we have masked array support at
all (and some people seem to want it), then we have to say more than
it's an array
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Keith Goodman kwgood...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the interest of making the discussion as concrete as possible,
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Keith Goodman kwgood...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathaniel Smith
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you see problems with the alterNEP proposal?
Yes, I really like my design as it stands now, and the alterNEP removes a
lot of the abstraction
Matthew Brett wrote:
should raise an error. On the other hand, if I make a normal array:
arr = np.array([1.0, 2.0, 7.0])
and then do this:
arr.visible[2] = False
then either I should raise an error (it's not a masked array), or,
more magically, construct a mask on the fly.
maybe
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Keith Goodman
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
You can't switch between the two approaches without big changes in your
code.
Lluis provided a case, and it was obscure. That switch seems like a
rare or non-existent use-case that should not guide the API.
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett
On 07/01/2011 10:15 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mark Wiebemwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brettmatthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you see problems with the alterNEP proposal?
Yes, I really like my design as it stands now, and the
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You can't switch between the two approaches without big changes in your
code.
Lluis provided a case, and it was obscure. That switch
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Bruce Southey bsout...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/01/2011 10:15 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
I really find that you are 'splitting hairs' in your arguments as it
really has to be up to the application on how missing values and NaN
have to be handled. I see no
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:00 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
You can't switch between the two approaches without
This is kind of late to be jumping into the 'long thread of doom', but I've
been following most of the posts, so I'd figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.
I'm Mark's officemate over the summer, and we've been talking daily about
his design. I was skeptical of various details at first, but by now Mark's
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you see problems with the alterNEP proposal?
Yes, I really like my
Matthew Brett writes:
Mainly: Reduced interoperability
Meaning?
You can't switch between the two approaches without big changes in your
code.
Lluis provided a case, and it was obscure. That switch seems like a
rare or non-existent use-case that should not guide the API.
The example
Nathaniel Smith writes:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you see problems with the alterNEP proposal?
Yes, I really like my design as it stands now, and the alterNEP removes a
On Jul 1, 2011 7:14 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you see
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Bruce Southey bsout...@gmail.com wrote:
I am sorry that that is NOT true - DON'T just lump every one into this
when they have clearly stated the opposite! Missing values are nothing
special to me, just reality. There are many statistical applications
where
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
For more complicated functions like pcolor() and contour(), the arrays
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
cjord...@uw.edu wrote:
This is kind of late to be jumping into the 'long thread of doom', but I've
been following most of the posts, so I'd figured I'd throw in my 2 cents.
I'm Mark's officemate over the summer, and we've been talking
On 07/01/2011 06:40 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
BTW, you can't access the memory of a masked value by taking a view,
at least if I'm reading this version of the NEP correctly, and it
seems to be the latest:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty clear that in this particular case, there are two
distinct features that different people want: the missing data
feature, and the masked array feature. The more I think about it, the
less I see how
On Jun 30, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
###
A alternative-NEP on masking and missing values
###
I like the idea of two different special values, np.NA for missing values,
np.IGNORE for masked
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty clear that in this particular case, there are two
distinct features that different people want: the missing data
On 06/30/2011 04:17 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com
mailto:n...@pobox.com wrote:
Anyway, it's
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Anyway, it's pretty clear that in this particular
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
###
A alternative-NEP on masking and missing values
###
I like the idea of
On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
###
A alternative-NEP on masking and missing values
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Pierre GM pgmdevl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 30, 2011, at 3:31 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
In the interest of making the discussion as concrete as possible, here
is my draft of an alternative proposal for NAs and masking, based on
Nathaniel's comments. Writing it, it seemed to me that Nathaniel is
right,
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the interest of making the discussion as concrete as possible, here
is my draft of an alternative proposal for NAs and masking, based on
Matthew Brett writes:
[...]
I'm afraid, like you, I'm a little lost in the world of masking,
because I only need the NAs. I was trying to see if I could come up
with an API that picked up some of the syntactic convenience of NAs,
without conflating NAs with IGNOREs. I guess we need some
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
As I tried to convey on my other mail, separating both will force you to
either:
* Make a copy of the array before passing it to another routine (because
the routine will assign np.NA but you still want the original data)
To
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
[...]
I'm afraid, like you, I'm a little lost in the world of masking,
because I only need the NAs. I was trying to see if I could come up
with an API that picked up some of the syntactic convenience of
Nathaniel Smith writes:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
As I tried to convey on my other mail, separating both will force you to
either:
* Make a copy of the array before passing it to another routine (because
the routine will assign np.NA but you still want
Matthew Brett writes:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
[...]
I'm afraid, like you, I'm a little lost in the world of masking,
because I only need the NAs. I was trying to see if I could come up
with an API that picked up some of the
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
[...]
I'm afraid, like you, I'm a little lost in the world of masking,
because I only need the NAs. I was trying
It seems to me, that what ``func`` should do, if it wants you to be
able to unmask the NAs, is to make a masked array view of ``arr``, and
return that. And indeed the simplicity of the separated API
immediately makes that clear - in my view at least.
I agree on this example. My only concern
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Lluís xscr...@gmx.net wrote:
Matthew Brett writes:
[...]
I'm afraid, like you,
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
In the interest of making the discussion as concrete as possible, here
is my draft of an alternative proposal for NAs and masking, based on
46 matches
Mail list logo
