Hi, On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been >> >>> talking >> >>> past each other in the discussions is that different people have >> >>> different >> >>> definitions for the terms being used. Until this is thoroughly cleared >> >>> up, I >> >>> feel the design process is tilting at windmills. >> >>> In the interests of clarity in our discussions, here is a starting >> >>> point >> >>> which is consistent with the NEP. These definitions have been added in >> >>> a >> >>> glossary within the NEP. If there are any ideas for amendments to >> >>> these >> >>> definitions that we can agree on, I will update the NEP with those >> >>> amendments. Also, if I missed any important terms which need to be >> >>> added, >> >>> please propose definitions for them. >> >>> NA (Not Available) >> >>> A placeholder for a value which is unknown to computations. That >> >>> value may be temporarily hidden with a mask, may have been lost >> >>> due to hard drive corruption, or gone for any number of reasons. >> >>> This is the same as NA in the R project. >> >> >> >> Really? Can one implement NA with a mask in R? I thought an NA was >> >> always bitpattern in R? >> > >> > I don't think that was what Mark was saying, see this bit later in this >> > email: >> >> I think it would make a difference if there was an implementation that >> had conflated masking with bitpatterns in terms of API. I don't think >> R is an example. >> > > Of course R is not an example of that. Nothing is. This is merely > conceptual. Separate NA from np.NA in Mark's NEP, and you will see his > point. Consider it the logical intersection of NA in Mark's NEP and the > aNEP.
I am trying to work out what you feel you feel the points of discussion are. There's surely no point in continuing to debate things we agree on. I don't think anyone disputes (or has ever disputed) that: There can be missing data implemented with bitpatterns There can be missing data implemented with masks Missing data can have propagate semantics Missing data can have ignore semantics. The implementation does not in itself constrain the semantics. Let's not discuss that any more; we all agree. So what do you think is the source of the disagreement? Or are you saying that there should be no disagreement at this stage? Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
