Eric Firing wrote: >Pierre GM wrote: > > >>All, >>I've updated this famous reimplementation of maskedarray I keep ranting about. >> >> >[...] > > >>I also put the file `timer_comparison.py`, that runs some unittests with each >>implementation >>(numpy.core.ma and maskedarray), and outputs the minimum times. >>On my machine, there doesn't seem to be a lot of differences, maskedarray >>being slightly faster. >> >> > >Same for mine: Thinkpad T41, Pentium M, ubuntu Edgy: > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/programs/py/tests$ python timer_comparison.py >#1.................................................. >numpy.core.ma: 0.492 - 0.493 >maskedarray : 0.481 - 0.482 >#2.................................................. >numpy.core.ma: 1.440 - 1.440 >maskedarray : 1.215 - 1.215 >#3.................................................. >numpy.core.ma: 2.272 - 2.274 >maskedarray : 2.156 - 2.156 > > >I admit that I have not studied the question, but my impression is that >you have made some nice improvements. Numpy unified the >Numeric/numarray split, but now we have a MaskedArray split. Any >prospect for unification, say in numpy 1.1? Might it make sense for >maskedarray to replace numpy.core.ma in 1.1? > >
This makes sense to me. I'm generally favorable to the new maskedarray (I actually like the idea of it being a sub-class). I'm just waiting for people that actually use the MaskedArray to comment. For 1.1 I would really like to move most of the often-used sub-classes of the ndarray to the C-level and merge in functionality from CVXOPT. -Travis _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
