[Numpy-discussion] Plans for Numpy 1.4.0 and scipy 0.8.0
Mon Jun 22 15:55:31 CDT 2009
On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Neil Crighton <email@example.com> wrote:
> David Cournapeau <cournape <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > >>> David Cournapeau wrote:
> > >>> > (Continuing the discussion initiated in the neighborhood iterator
> > >>> > thread)
> > >>> > - Chuck suggested to drop python < 2.6 support from now on. I am
> > >>> > against it without a very strong and detailed rationale, because many OS
> > >>> > still don't have python 2.6 (RHEL, Ubuntu LTS).
> > >>>
> > >>> I vote against dropping support for python 2.5. Personally I have no
> > >>> incentive to upgrade to 2.6 and am very happy with 2.5.
> > >>
> > >> Will requiring python-2.6 help the developers port numpy to python-3?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Can't really say at this point, but it is the suggested path to
> > > python-3.
> > OTOH, I don't find the python 3 "official" transition story very
> > convincing. I have tried to gather all the information I could find,
> > both on the python wiki and from transitions stories. To support both
> > python 2 and 3, the suggestion is to use the 2to3 script, but it is
> > painfully slow for big packages like numpy. And there ave very few
> > stories for porting python 3 C extensions.
> > Another suggestion is to avoid breaking the API when transitioning for
> > python 3. But that seems quite unrealistic. How do we deal with the
> > removing of string/long APIs ? This will impact the numpy API as well,
> > so how do we deal with it ?
> As I understand this suggestion, they just hope external packages don't say
> 'Hey, if we're breaking backwards compatibility anyway, lets take the chance to
> do a whole lot of extra API breakage!' That way, if people have problems
> migrating to the new version, they know they're likely to be python 3 related.
> Jarrod Millman's blog post about numpy and python 3 mentions this:
> > Also, there does not seem to be any advantages for python 3 for
> > scientific people ?
> I think there are lots of advantages in python 3 for scientific people. The
> new integer division alone is a huge improvement. I've been bitten by this
> (1/2 = 0) several times in the past, and the only reason I'm not bitten by it
> now is that I've trained myself to always type things like 1./x, which look
> The reorganisation of the standard library and the removal of duplicate ways of
> doing things in the core also makes the language much easier to learn. This
> isn't a huge gain for people already familiar with Python's idiosyncracies, but
> it's important for people first coming to the language.
> Print becoming a function would have been a pain for interactive work, but
> happily ipython auto-parentheses takes care of that.
> You could argue that moving to python 3 isn't attractive because there isn't
> any scientific library support, but then that's because numpy hasn't been
> ported to python 3 yet ;)
Neil, I agree that "new integer division alone is a huge improvement"
I have been using python 2 with -Qnew for a long time now, and I like
the fact that
1/2 = .5
(in fact I set it up to get the -Qnew by default, so don't have to
actually type it...)
Everything seems to work well !!
(numpy,scipy,wxPython,sympy,matplotlib,PIL(minor patching) at least)
I thought this one was making things much easier to explain to new
comers and made things "future ready" -- every if we will have to wait
for the rest of the future ....
More information about the Numpy-discussion