[Numpy-discussion] packaging scipy (was Re: Simple financial functions for NumPy)
Travis E. Oliphant
Wed Apr 9 22:21:16 CDT 2008
> And I'll say the thing I'm dying to say since this started: If anybody
> other than Travis had suggested we put financial functions in numpy
> the response would have been: make it a scikit, let the functions
> mature and evolve, get some feedback from users and then we'll see
> where they fit in. The fact that we are still discussing this shows
> the huge amount of respect Travis has in this community, but also the
> lack of guidelines for NumPy's growth. Maybe it's time for us to
> decide on a procedure for NEPs (Numpy Enhancement Proposals) !
I appreciate that. It is rewarding to have time invested be regarded
usefully by others.
But, I've always seen the growth of NumPy as a community effort and
there have been many voices with more wisdom than mine who have guided
it. So, I'm not sure if it is accurate that some are not expressing
their true attitudes toward the addition of these functions, but if it
is then please don't hold back. I really do want accurate and sincere
feedback. NumPy owes a great intellectual debt to all the mailing list
discussions over the years.
Right now it looks like there is a mix of attitudes, about the financial
functions. They are a small enough addition, that I don't think it
matters terribly much what we do with them. So, it seems to me that
keeping them in numpy.lib and following the rule for that namespace for
1.0.5 will be viewed as anywhere from tolerable to a good idea depending
on your point of view.
The discussion does demonstrate that there are a lot of opinions. This
to me is the sign of a healthy community. Fantastic! Only by
hearing all the points of view can NumPy continue to improve.
More information about the Numpy-discussion