[Numpy-discussion] Ransom Proposals

Colin J. Williams cjw at sympatico.ca
Sun Mar 26 06:16:06 CST 2006


Ed Schofield wrote:

>
> On 26/03/2006, at 8:34 AM, Tim Hochberg wrote:
>
>> That brings up another question: is the plan to keep oldnumeric  
>> around forever, or is it going away eventually? If it is going  away, 
>> then the place to put these would be oldnumeric. Actually,  it's OK 
>> if it sticks around as long as it doesn't end up in the  numpy 
>> namespace by default.
>
>
> I think this is a great idea.  Let's remove the functions in  
> oldnumeric.py from the numpy namespace by default.  People migrating  
> from Numeric could add "from numpy.core.oldnumeric import *" at the  
> top of each source file for compatibility.  This would send a clear  
> message that the functions in this module are deprecated and there  
> for compatibility reasons only, and that the methods are the  
> preferred interface.  A clear division like this between the old and  
> the new would also simplify decisions on when to leave the existing  
> behaviour alone and when it should be changed for the better.  Then  
> the problem Fernando sees with the reshape function and method having  
> different copy / view behaviour would be easier to explain and  
> understand -- the functions just do the old Numeric thing, whereas  
> the methods are consistent with each other.
>
+1

> I'm now a fan of method interfaces in Python.  One reason is that,  
> with .reshape(), .sum() etc. as methods, rather than functions, it's  
> possible for me to make the behaviour of SciPy's sparse matrices  
> highly consistent with NumPy's arrays and matrices, without NumPy  
> needing hooks for this.  But making numpy.sum etc accept either dense  
> or sparse matrices would require extensive modification to NumPy.
>
Can sparse matrices not be handled in a sub-class?

Colin W.

> -- Ed






More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list