On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
> On May 20, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> >
>> > My own plan for the near term would be as follows:
>> >
>> > 1) Put in the experimental option and get the
On May 20, 2012, at 12:15 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Travis Oliphant 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 mo
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Travis Oliphant 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 doe
On May 19, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> After reading all the discussion around masked arr
>> 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.
>
> +1 on not blocking the release while we invent+implement yet another
> experimental API.
Nobod
>
> 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 m
On May 19, 2012, at 10:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input from
> as many peopl
On May 19, 2012, at 9:17 AM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input from
> as many people as possible, it is clear that there is still disagreement
> about w
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM, David Cournapeau
>>> wrote:
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Charles R Harris <
charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com>
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
>
>> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>>
Hey all,
A
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> The motivation behind splitting the mask out into a separate ndmasked is
> primarily so that pre-existing code will not silently function on NA-masked
> arrays and produce incorrect results. This centres around using PyArray_DATA
> to get at the
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:00 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>>
>>> Hey all,
>>>
>>> After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
>
>> Hey all,
>>
>> After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input
>> from as many people as possible, it is clear that there is still
>> disagreement ab
On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input
> from as many people as possible, it is clear that there is still
> disagreement about what to do, but there have been some fruitful
> discussions that en
Travis Oliphant wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input
>from as many people as possible, it is clear that there is still
>disagreement about what to do, but there have been some fruitful
>discussions that ensued.
>
>This isn't really new as
The best way to keep in the loop is to comment on this list and pay attention
to threads that discuss it.Thank you for speaking up, as I was aware of
your significant use of the current masked array in NumPy, but it is good when
you can articulate your use-cases and APIs that are helpful or
Travis,
We have a significant user base for masked arrays, with a lot of
"real-life" experience, use-cases and data.
We would really like to get involved on this, please keep us in the loop.
C.
On 5/18/12 2:47 PM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote:
>Hey all,
>
>After reading all the discussion around
Hey all,
After reading all the discussion around masked arrays and getting input from as
many people as possible, it is clear that there is still disagreement about
what to do, but there have been some fruitful discussions that ensued.
This isn't really new as there was significant disagreeme
19 matches
Mail list logo
