On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Christopher Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov>wrote:
> Joe Harrington wrote: > > All > > that has to happen is to allow the sense of the mask to be FALSE = the > > data are bad, TRUE = the data are good, and allow (not require) the > > mask to be of any numerical type, or at least of integer type as well > > as boolean. > > quick note on this: I like the "FALSE == good" way, because: > > instead of good and bad we think "masked" and "unmasked", then we have: > > False = "unmasked" = "regular old data" > True = "masked" = "something special about the data > > The default for "something special" is "bad" (or "missing" , or > "ignore"), but the cool thing is that if you use an int: > > 0 = "unmasked" > 1 = "masked because of one thing" > 2 = "masked because of another" > etc., etc. > > This could be pretty powerful > > I don't think the false/true dichotomy isn't something to worry about, it is an implementation detail that is hidden from the user... Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
