[Numpy-discussion] Dealing with the mode argument in qr.
Charles R Harris
charlesr.harris@gmail....
Wed Feb 6 13:54:41 CST 2013
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> This post is to bring the discussion of PR #2965<https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2965>to the attention of the list. There are at least three issues in play here.
>>>
>>> 1) The PR adds modes 'big' and 'thin' to the current modes 'full', 'r',
>>> 'economic' for qr factorization. The problem is that the current 'full' is
>>> actually 'thin' and 'big' should be 'full'. The solution here was to raise
>>> a FutureWarning on use of 'full', alias it to 'thin' for the time being,
>>> and at some distant time change 'full' to alias 'big'.
>>>
>>
> This is asking for problems, to gain some naming consistency. I can't tell
> how confusing 'full' is now, but deprecating and removing would be better
> than changing what it returns.
>
That's what the current state of the PR is, both 'full' and 'economic' are
deprecated.
>
>
>>
>>> 2) The 'economic' mode serves little purpose. I propose to deprecate it
>>> and add a 'qrf' mode instead, corresponding to scipy's 'raw' mode. We can't
>>> use 'raw' itself as traditionally the mode may be specified using the first
>>> letter only and that leads to a conflict with 'r'.
>>>
>>
> That's not a very good reason to not use "raw", since "raw" is a new
> option and you therefore don't have to apply the rule that you can give
> only the first letter to it.
>
Also the current state.
>
>
>>
>>> 3) As suggested in 2, the use of single letter abbreviations can
>>> constrain the options in choosing mode names and they are not as
>>> informative as the full name. A possibility here is to deprecate the use of
>>> the abbreviations in favor of the full names.
>>>
>>
> I'm not feeling very strongly about this, but we have to be careful about
> deprecations. Possible future naming constraints on new modes is not a good
> reason to deprecate. This one-letter option isn't even mentioned in the
> docs it looks like. So why not leave that as is and ensure it keeps working
> (add a unit test if needed)?
>
Currently qr requires full names for the new modes but not for the
deprecated 'full' and 'economic'. That can be changed if we use 'thin'
instead of 'reduced'.
>
>>
>>> A longer term problem is the divergence between the numpy and scipy
>>> versions of qr. The divergence is enough that I don't see any easy way to
>>> come to a common interface, but that is something that would be desirable
>>> if possible.
>>>
>>
> This would be a problem imho. But I don't see why you can't add "raw" to
> numpy's qr. And if you add "big" and "thin" in numpy, you can add those
> modes in scipy too.
>
Currently I've used bfroehle's suggestions, although I'm tempted by 'thin'
instead of 'reduced'
<snip>
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20130206/6440ab91/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list