[Numpy-discussion] packaging scipy (was Re: Simple financial functions for NumPy)

Travis E. Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
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.   

-Travis





More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list