[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.
> 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?
> -- Ed
More information about the Numpy-discussion