Hi, On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 12:18 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> ... >> That seems like a risky strategy to me, as the most likely outcome is >> that people worried about memory will avoid masked arrays because they >> know they use more memory. The memory usage is predictable and we >> won't learn any more about it from use. We most of us already know if >> we're having to optimize code for memory. >> >> You won't get complaints, you'll just lose a group of users, who will, >> I suspect, stick to NaNs, unsatisfactory as they are. > > This blade cuts both ways, we'd lose a group of users if we don't support > masking semantics, too.
I didn't mean to agitate for my own use-case, I was only saying that 'implement masking, wait and see for na-dtype' was not a good strategy for deciding. > That said, Travis favors doing both, so there's a good chance there will be > time for it. That's very encouraging. I hope I can contribute somehow when the time comes, with review or some other way, Thanks a lot, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
