On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 01:02:07AM +0100, Matthew Brett wrote: > I'm personally worried that the memory overhead of array.masks will > make many of us tend to avoid them. I work with images that can > easily get large enough that I would not want an array-items size byte > array added to my storage.
I work with the same kind of data ( :D ). The way we manipulate our data, in my lab, is, to represent 3D data with a mask to use a 1D array and a corresponding 3D mask. It reduces the memory footprint, to the cost of loosing the 3D shape of the data. I am raising this because it is an option that has not been suggested so far. I am not saying that it should be the option used to implement mask arrays, I am just saying that there are many different ways of doing it, and I don't think that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. I tend to feel like Wes: good building block to easily implement our own solutions is what we want. My 2 cents, Gael _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
