Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus

Hi, On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Chris Barker wrote: > On 10/29/11 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > >> I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. It isn't like it is >> (known to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis >> on which build other options. It also s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:55 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus

On 10/29/11 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > I'm much opposed to ripping the current code out. It isn't like it is > (known to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis > on which build other options. It also smacks of gratuitous violence > committed by someone yet to make a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus

On 10/29/11 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > That's true, but I am hoping that the difference between - say: > > a[0:2] = np.NA > > and > > a.mask[0:2] = False > > would be easy enough to imagine. > > > It is in this case. I agree the explicit ``a.mask`` is clearer. Interesting

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: Thanks again for your email, I'm sure I'm not the only one who breathes a deep sigh of relief when I see your posts. > I appreciate Nathaniel's idea to pull the changes and I can respect his > desire to do that.   It seemed like ther

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> >>> Here are my needs: >>> >>> 1) How NAs are implemented cannot be end user visible. Having to pass >>> maskna=True is a problem. I suppose a solution is to set the flag to >>> true on every array inside of pandas so the user never

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Oct 29, 2011, at 7:24 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 10/29/2011 12:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing > > wrote: >> >>On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: >> >>> >>> I haven't been following the disc

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

>> >> Here are my needs: >> >> 1) How NAs are implemented cannot be end user visible. Having to pass >> maskna=True is a problem. I suppose a solution is to set the flag to >> true on every array inside of pandas so the user never knows (you >> mentioned someone else had some other solution, i co

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus

On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Jason Grout wrote: > On 10/29/11 5:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: >> I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead: >> a.mask[0:2] = True? >> >> It's something that I actually find a bit difficult to get right in the >> current numpy.ma

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus

On 10/29/11 5:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead: > a.mask[0:2] = True? > > It's something that I actually find a bit difficult to get right in the > current numpy.ma implementation: I would find more > int

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:48 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On 10/29/2011 12:57 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing > wrote: > > On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > > > > > I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it > be instead: >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Wes McKinney wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matt

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Han Genuit wrote: > To be honest, you have been slandering a lot, also in previous > discussions, to get what you wanted. This is not a healthy way of > discussion, nor does it help in any way. That's a severe accusation. Please quote something I said that w

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

To be honest, you have been slandering a lot, also in previous discussions, to get what you wanted. This is not a healthy way of discussion, nor does it help in any way. There have been many people willing to listen and agree with you on points; and this is exactly what discussion is all about, bu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: Hi, On Sat, O

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 2

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:47 AM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > >> >> I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead: >> a.mask[0:2] = True? > > That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's > implementation

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > > > > > I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be > instead: > > a.mask[0:2] = True? > > That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's > implement

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On 10/29/2011 12:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > > I haven't been following the discussion closely, but wouldn't it be instead: > a.mask[0:2] = True? That would be consistent with numpy.ma and the opposite of Mark's implementation. I can live with either, but I much prefer the numpy.ma versio

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Olivier Delalleau wrote: > 2011/10/29 Ralf Gommers > >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: >>> > Hi, >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gomm

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

2011/10/29 Ralf Gommers > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oc

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> O

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> >> >> On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those >> > who have made consi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those > who have made consistent contributions over the years, reviewed code, fixed > bugs, and have gen

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris wrote: > > Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those who have made consistent contributions over the years, reviewed code, fixed bugs, and have generally been active in numpy development. In any group participation is i

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett >> > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Friday, October 28, 2011

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > Matt, > > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >>> Forget about rudeness or decision processes. >> >> No, that's a common mistake, which is to assume that any conversation >> about things which aren't technical, is not i

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:2

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On 10/29/2011 12:26 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > The history of this discussion doesn't suggest it straightforward to get > a design right first time. It's a complex subject. > > The second part of your statement, "and then implement", sounds so > simple. The reality is that there are only a handful o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, instead of putting up a pull request that reverts all the 25000 lines of code than have been written to support an NA mask, why won't you set up a pull request that uses the current code base to implement your own ideas on how it should work? ___ NumP

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus

On 10/28/11 10:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > I might like the idea of a NA to "always" mean absent (and destroys - > even through views), and MA (or some other name) which always means > ignore (and has the masking behavior with views). I should point out that if I'm dictating code to someone (e.g

[Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Matt, On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> Forget about rudeness or decision processes. > > No, that's a common mistake, which is to assume that any conversation > about things which aren't technical, is not important. Nathaniel's > point is important. Rudeness is important.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Matthew, the problem I have is that it seems that you and Nathaniel won't be > satisfied unless things are done *your* way. Hi Charles, I'm sorry if I've given this impression, and I know it's easy to feel this way in a contentious discu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Wes McKinney wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 28,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett >>> wrote: Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 28

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > 2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt >> >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett > > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > 2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > >> > The space issues was never ignored and Mark left room for that to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > 2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > The space issues was never ignored and Mark left room for that to be >> > addressed.  Parameterized dtypes can still be added (and isn't

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

2011/10/28 Stéfan van der Walt > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > The space issues was never ignored and Mark left room for that to be > > addressed. Parameterized dtypes can still be added (and isn't all that > > different from multi-na). Perhaps I could be convinced o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > The space issues was never ignored and Mark left room for that to be > addressed.  Parameterized dtypes can still be added (and isn't all that > different from multi-na). Perhaps I could be convinced of a having np.MA > assignments mean "igno

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Friday, October 28, 2011, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 P

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >>> > >>> On Tue, Oct 25,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant >>> wrote: >>> > I think Nathaniel and Matthe

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant >> wrote: >> > I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very >> > specific feedback that was helpful in understanding o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > > I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very > > specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of > a > > difficult problem. In particular, I really

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant >> wrote: >>> I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very >>> specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other per

Re: [Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Hi, On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: >> I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very >> specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of a >> difficult problem.     In particular, I really

[Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I think Nathaniel and Matthew provided very > specific feedback that was helpful in understanding other perspectives of a > difficult problem.     In particular, I really wanted bit-patterns > implemented.    However, I also understand that