On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:00 AM, Gael Varoquaux < [email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > This is why I'm also proposing to add a 'mask=' parameter to ufuncs, for example, to expose the implementation details of the masked array system to people who need masks but need them to be a bit different. There may be other places this kind of thing would slip in as well. -Mark > > My 2 cents, > > Gael > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
