On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 02:35:26PM -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Basically it buys not forcing *all* NumPy users (on the C-API level) to
> now deal with a masked array. I know this push is a feature that is
> part of Mark's intention (as it pushes downstream libraries to think about
> missing data at a fundamental level).
I think that this is a bad policy because:
1. An array is not always data. I realize that there is a big push for
data-related computing lately, but I still believe that the notion
missing data makes no sens for the majority of numpy arrays
instanciated.
2. Not every algorithm can be made to work with missing data. I would
even say that most of the advanced algorithm do not work with missing
data.
Don't try to force upon people a problem that they do not have :).
Gael
PS: This message does not claim to take any position in the debate on
which solution for missing data is the best, because I don't think that I
have a good technical vision to back any position.
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
