[Numpy-discussion] Missing/accumulating data

[Chris Barker]

On 7/3/11 9:03 PM, Joe Harrington wrote:
> Christopher Barker, Ph.D. wrote
>> quick note on this: I like the "FALSE == good" way, because:
>
> So, you like to have multiple different kinds of masked, but I need
> multiple good values for counts.

fair enough, maybe there isn't a consensus about what is best, or most 
common, interpretation.

However, I was thinking less "different kinds of masks" than, "something 
special" -- so if there is ANY additional information about a given 
element, it has a non-zero value.

so less "FALSE == good", then "FALSE == raw_value"

seems like the cleanest way to do it.

That having been said, I generally DON'T like the "zero is false" 
convention -- I wish that Python actually required a Boolean where one 
was called, for, rather that being able to pass in zero or any-other-value.

Speaking of which, would we make the NA value be false?

-Chris


-- 
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R            (206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115       (206) 526-6317   main reception

Chris.Barker at noaa.gov