[Numpy-discussion] future directions
Sat Aug 29 03:07:22 CDT 2009
On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 00:41, David Cournapeau<email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Robert Kern<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 09:15, Christopher Barker<Chris.Barker@noaa.gov> wrote:
>>> Joe Harrington wrote:
>>>> However, there are two natural forklets coming up.
>>>> The first is Python 3.0, which will necessitate some API changes.
>>> Absolutely! This seems like a no-brainer. I don't think we are talking
>>> about really major changes to the numpy API anyway, generally clean-up,
>>> and there is no way anyone is going to get their Py2 code working on Py3
>>> without tweaking it anyway, this is the time to do it.
>> No, it is the *worst* time to do it. We have been asked by the Python
>> developer team *not* to use the Python 3 transition to break all kinds
>> of other backwards compatibility.
> AFAIK, the main argument is that this would allow for easier
> transition, since someone could use 2to3 to make the transition from
> numpy for python 2 to numpy for python 3. But is it even possible for
> a large package like numpy ? I don't see how the C api for example
> could be backward compatible, since the API with PyString and PyInt
> would have to be changed.
I'm not talking about that kind of breakage. You can break
compatibility for whatever is *necessary* in order to make the
transition. What Chris is suggesting we do and what Guido is
requesting we not do is to take the opportunity to break compatibility
for stuff entirely unrelated to the transition just because people
will have to port stuff around that time anyways.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the NumPy-Discussion