On 07/07/2011 07:51 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
>
>> Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
>> just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
>
On Jul 7, 2011, at 8:46 AM, Eric Firing wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 07:51 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
>> On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
>>
>>> Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
>>> just lost the abili
On 07/06/2011 07:51 PM, Chris Barker wrote:
> On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
>
>> Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
>> just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
>
On 7/6/11 11:57 AM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker
> Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
> just lost the ability to get the original value back if you want to stop
> ignoring it? Maybe that's not inherent to what
Mark Wiebe writes:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Pierre GM wrote:
> Ah, semantics...
> On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>
>> NA (Not Available)
>> A placeholder for a value which is unknown to computations. That
>> value may be temporarily hidden with a mask,
(snip discussion of open kimono)
> On the other hand, to try and conceal these implementation
> differences, seems to me to break my feeling for numpy arrays, and
> make me feel I have an object that is rather magic, that I don't fully
> understand, and for which clever stuff is going on, under th
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Christopher Jordan-Squire
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> > wrote:
> >> On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Ba
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
>> On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>>> Mark Wiebe wrote:
1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
> wrote:
> > On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> >> Mark Wiebe wrote:
> >>> 1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
> >>> combination of NA as bi
On Wednesday, July 6, 2011, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
> On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
>> Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>> 1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
>>> combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
>>> IGNORE as mask
On 07/06/2011 08:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> 1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
>> combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
>> IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
>
> Is this really true? if you use a bitpatter
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Christopher Barker wrote:
> Mark Wiebe wrote:
> > 1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
> > combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
> > IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
>
> Is this really true? if you use
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Pierre GM wrote:
> Ah, semantics...
>
> On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe 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
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Peter <
numpy-discuss...@maubp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe 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
> dif
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> >>> It appears to me that one of the biggest reas
Mark Wiebe wrote:
> 1) NA vs IGNORE and bitpattern vs mask are completely independent. Any
> combination of NA as bitpattern, NA as mask, IGNORE as bitpattern, and
> IGNORE as mask are reasonable.
Is this really true? if you use a bitpattern for IGNORE, haven't you
just lost the ability to get
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011
Ah, semantics...
On Jul 6, 2011, at 5:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>
> 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
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
> >>> It appears to me that one of the biggest reas
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Peter
wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>>> It appears to me that one of the biggest reason some of us have been talking
>>> past each other in the discussions is th
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe 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 t
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe 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 t
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 4:40 PM, Mark Wiebe 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 de
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
