[Numpy-discussion] numpy 2.0, what else to do?

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Sat Feb 13 12:31:46 CST 2010

On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Joe Harrington <jh@physics.ucf.edu> 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
> we
> > could consider a few other changes. First, numpy imports a ton of stuff
> by
> > default and this is maintained for backward compatibility. Would this be
> a
> > reasonable time to change that and require explicit imports for things
> like
> > 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...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100213/a98a9235/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list