On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> On 7/3/11 9:03 PM, Joe Harrington wrote: > > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. wrote > >> quick note on this: I like the "FALSE == good" way, because: > > > > So, you like to have multiple different kinds of masked, but I need > > multiple good values for counts. > > fair enough, maybe there isn't a consensus about what is best, or most > common, interpretation. > > However, I was thinking less "different kinds of masks" than, "something > special" -- so if there is ANY additional information about a given > element, it has a non-zero value. > > so less "FALSE == good", then "FALSE == raw_value" > > seems like the cleanest way to do it. > > That having been said, I generally DON'T like the "zero is false" > convention -- I wish that Python actually required a Boolean where one > was called, for, rather that being able to pass in zero or any-other-value. > > Speaking of which, would we make the NA value be false? > For booleans, it works out like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_logic#Kleene_logic In R, trying to test the truth value of NA ("if (NA) ...") raises an exception. Adopting this behavior seems reasonable to me. -Mark > -Chris > > > -- > Christopher Barker, Ph.D. > Oceanographer > > Emergency Response Division > NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice > 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax > Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception > > chris.bar...@noaa.gov > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
