On May 20, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > > > > My own plan for the near term would be as follows: > > > > 1) Put in the experimental option and get the 1.7 release out. This gets us > > through the next couple of months and keeps things moving. > > > > The "experimental" option does not solve the problem which is that the > ndarray object now has masked fields which changes the fundamental nature of > an ndarray for a lot of downstream users that really have no idea what has > just happened. I don't see how this has been addressed by any proposal > except for the one I have suggested which allows a masked array object and a > regular ndarray to co-exist for a time. I doubt that the proposal actually > helps get 1.7 out any faster either as there are multiple experimental APIs > that would have to be created to pull it off on both the C and Python level. > > So, remove them in 1.8 and try something else. With experimental (say in > site.cfg), the base array could even be different. I don't see the problem > here. Think big.
I don't think I understand your mental model of this. Are you saying add an experimental flag at the C-level (essentially a #define that eliminates any code involving masked arrays unless the define is made at compile time?) It seems like just applying Nathaniel's patch would be a better approach. -Travis > > <snip> > > Chuck > > _______________________________________________ > 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
