On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nathaniel, an implementation using masks will look *exactly* like an > implementation using na-dtypes from the user's point of view. Except that > taking a masked view of an unmasked array allows ignoring values without > destroying or copying the original data.
Charles, I know that :-). But if that view thing is an advertised feature -- in fact, the key selling point for the masking-based implementation, included specifically to make a significant contingent of users happy -- then it's certainly user-visible. And it will make other users unhappy, like I said. That's life. But who cares? My main point is that implementing a missing data solution and a separate masked array solution is probably less work than implementing a single everything-to-everybody solution *anyway*, *and* it might make both sets of users happier too. Notice that in my proposal, there's really nothing there that isn't already in Mark's NEP in some form or another, but in my version there's almost no overlap between the two features. That's not because I was trying to make them artificially different; it's because I tried to think of the most natural ways to satisfy each set of use cases, and they're just different. -- Nathaniel _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
