[Numpy-discussion] Release of NumPy

[Travis E. Oliphant]

Sebastian Haase wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:41 AM, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Jon Wright <wright@esrf.fr> wrote:
>>  > Alan G Isaac wrote:
>>  >  >
>>  >  > Will matrix behavior change in 1.1, as discussed from time
>>  >  > to time?  Perhaps it just takes a very small change in __getitem__:
>>  >  > <URL:http://www.mail-archive.com/numpy-discussion@scipy.org/msg07363.html>
>>  >
>>  >  Quoting from:
>>  >  http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2008-March/077723.html
>>  >  """
>>  >  Executive summary: Python 2.6 and 3.0 finals are planned for September
>>  >  3, 2008.
>>  >  """
>>  >
>>  >  In the event that there really is a valid reason to change the API (much
>>  >  like serial killers have their own valid reasons for their crimes...).
>>  >  Why not finalise that perfect API for the python3.0 build, when everyone
>>  >  is expecting code to change for 3K? Name them numpy3.x.x to match the
>>  >  python major version.
>>
>>  The Python community has been begging package owners *not* to do this.
>>  That would impose yet another hurdle to the adoption of Python 3.0.
>>
>>
>>     
>
> So, to summarize one more time:
> """
> What used to be talked about as "1.1" will now become "1.2" ---
> and "1.0.5" will be "1.1"
> """
>
> Did I get this right !?
>
> I'm curious to know _which_ were the changes that break the API. I
> thought all additions like "axis=0" were made without breaking the
> backwards compatibility. Otherwise it would (should !!!) have been
> added as "axis=None".
>
> Please keep in mind that there are a number of these "awkward"
> "wrong-default" arguments. I was hoping these would be unified [e.g.
> always same default, axis=None]  very soon  -- that is in 1.1.
> Also on my list is   N.resize vs. arr.resize, were one fills with
> zeros, the other repeats.
>   

This is a carry over from Numeric.  I should have been more proactive 
here and forced the change, but I think one of the internal functions 
depended on the old behavior and I punted.

So, we should allow both behaviors but I agree have them do the same 
thing by default.

-Travis