[Numpy-discussion] Re: Please chime in on proposed methods for arrays
perry at stsci.edu
Fri Mar 18 06:43:00 CST 2005
On Mar 18, 2005, at 2:51 AM, konrad.hinsen at laposte.net wrote:
> On 17.03.2005, at 19:58, Joe Harrington wrote:
>> That said, I view a.Sin as a potentially devastating change, if
>> traditional functional notation is not guarranteed to be preserved
> No one made that proposition, so there is no need to worry. The recent
> discussion was about
> 1) a misunderstanding.
> 2) internal implementation details.
That it was a misunderstanding is apparently the case. But if you look
at the original text, it is easy to see how people could draw that
conclusion. So the responses that drew that conclusion had the
desirable effect in making that point clear. Specifically, what was
> Should all the ufuncs be methods as well? I think Konrad suggested
> this. What is the opinion of others?
> The move from functions to methods will mean that some of the function
> calls currently in Numeric.py will be redundant, but I think they
> should stay there for backwards compatibility, (perhaps with a
> deprecation warning...)
So the mention of a deprecation warning juxtaposed with the suggestion
that ufuncs be methods suggested that it was possible that ufuncs would
eventually be only methods. It is good to clear up that isn't the case.
More information about the Numpy-discussion