[Numpy-discussion] numpy 2.0, what else to do?
Charles R Harris
Sat Feb 13 12:31:46 CST 2010
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Joe Harrington <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Chuck Harris writes (on numpy-discussion):
> > Since there has been talk of deprecating the numarray and numeric
> > compatibility parts of numpy for the upcoming 2.0 release I thought maybe
> > could consider a few other changes. First, numpy imports a ton of stuff
> > default and this is maintained for backward compatibility. Would this be
> > reasonable time to change that and require explicit imports for things
> > fft? Second, Poly1D has problems that aren't likely to get fixed, I would
> > like to both deprecate the old polynomial support and make it not be
> > imported by default.
> > Thoughts?
> I'd like to suggest that 2.0 include a fully-reviewed set of
> docstrings (except for the "unimportant" ones).
> Really, 1.0 should not have been released without documentation, but
> it was released prematurely anyway, and we've spent much of the 1.x
> release series fixing inconsistencies and other problems, as well as
> writing the draft docs now included in the releases. I look at 2.0
> as our "real" 1.0, as do many others.
> I am posting a call for a (possibly paid) Django programmer who can
> add a second review capability to the doc wiki. That call is on
> scipy-dev, where discussion of the wiki and general documentation
> topics takes place. If you are interested, please respond there, not
> here. Discussion of whether to include reviewed docs in numpy 2.0
> belongs here on numpy-discussion, of course.
> I think the main issue with regard to docs will be time frame. What
> is the time frame for a 2.0 release?
2-3 weeks from now.
> Aside from docs and the things Chuck mentioned, I think a general
> design review would be a good idea, to root out things like any more
> lurking inconsistencies or disorganizations, such as the "median"
> problem. I guess that's what Chuck started, but should we formalize
> it by parceling out chunks of the package to 2-3 reviewers each for
> comment? The idea would be to root out problems, incompleteness, and
> disorganization, *not* to engage in a big rewrite that would massively
> break the API for everyone.
> Ideally, after 2.0 the changes would be improvements rather than
> API-breaking fixes.
We aren't going to have time to review and redesign numpy for 2.0. That's
what 3.0 is for and that is probably a couple of years in the future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion