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

Xavier Gnata xavier.gnata@gmail....
Sat Feb 13 13:50:45 CST 2010

On 02/13/2010 07:31 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Joe Harrington <jh@physics.ucf.edu
> <mailto: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.
When do you plan to fully support python3?
In version 2.x ? 3.x (that would be sad).


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20100213/8064dcbc/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list