Hi Eric
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:13:13AM -1000, Eric Firing wrote:
> I think the description of the putmask difference is missing the point.
> The real difference is not in the way the third argument is handled,
> or its required shape, but in whether the mask is updated or not.
This behav
Stefan,
I think the description of the putmask difference is missing the point.
The real difference is not in the way the third argument is handled,
or its required shape, but in whether the mask is updated or not.
numpy.ma.putmask updates the mask; that is, if it "puts" something into
the
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 06:52:38PM -0500, Pierre GM wrote:
> > If we can document exactly what the compatibility issues are (and it
> > looks like we are almost there), we should move forward.
>
> OK, I'll take care of that this week-end. Stefan, feel free to beat me to
> it...
A first draft is
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 10:43:28AM +0200, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 05:24:44PM -0600, Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> > > * bool(x) raises a ValueError, as it does for ndarrays.
> > >
> > What does bool(x) raise for numpy.core.ma.
Sorry, I realise you were talking about t
Hi Travis
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 05:24:44PM -0600, Travis E. Oliphant wrote:
> > * bool(x) raises a ValueError, as it does for ndarrays.
> >
> What does bool(x) raise for numpy.core.ma.
It now behaves the same way as numpy does, raising a ValueError:
In [1]: bool(N.ma.array([0,1]))
-
> > * cumsum(cumprod) works as if the _data array was filled with 0 (1). The
> > mask is preserved, but not updated. (the output of numpy.core.ma has
> > nomask).
>
> I don't understand what you mean here.So, the mask effectively
> removes those elements from the sum(product) computation? What
Pierre GM wrote:
> All,
>
>
>> I'd like to move forward with it sooner (for 1.0.5) if the API changes
>> are not drastic. Although ideally 0 API changes would be desireable,
>> I'm not sure if that is feasible. Are put and putmask the only changes
>> in the API. What are the rest of them?
>>
All,
> I'd like to move forward with it sooner (for 1.0.5) if the API changes
> are not drastic. Although ideally 0 API changes would be desireable,
> I'm not sure if that is feasible. Are put and putmask the only changes
> in the API. What are the rest of them?
* put, putmask, take should be
Stefan van der Walt wrote:
> Hi Travis,
>
> During the sprint I also merged Pierre's MaskedArray code into the
> maskedarray branch. That is nearly done, with only a few unit tests
> still failing -- ones brought over from the old numpy.ma.
>
> This is mainly due to some changes in the API, for ex
