[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages

Almar Klein a.klein@science-applied...
Sat Sep 22 05:55:18 CDT 2012

On 22 September 2012 11:56, Thomas Kluyver <takowl@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 22 September 2012 02:17, Almar Klein <a.klein@science-applied.nl>
> wrote:
> > Trying to get at the subtleties...  so what if IPython with notebook
> > feature* is a part of the base. So that every user with a pylab-compliant
> > distro can fire up a notebook. But, distros can (and will) ship
> additionally
> > an IDE (like IEP or Spyder) that does *not* have IPython or a
> notebook-like
> > interface, but these interfaces are still considered Pylab-compliant.
> That
> > does sound reasonable?
> I think this - roughly - has been my position all along. Whatever
> interface we mandate merely has to be included: distributions don't
> have to make it the only interface, or even the primary interface.
> Python(x,y) can keep promoting Spyder, and your own Pyzo can promote
> IEP. But Pylab tutorials will naturally be written for whatever
> interface is common to all distributions, whether that's a notebook or
> a REPL.
> A minor quibble over semantics: as I envisage it, it is a distribution
> that is Pylab compliant or not, not an interface. Within Pyzo, for
> instance, IEP can be an interface to Pylab, but it would not be a
> 'Pylab interface', because it's not part of the spec. Similarly for
> Spyder, IdleX or Reinteract. Even the >>> shell is an interface to
> Pylab if you can import the necessary packages.

That's how I see it too. Thanks for wording it more clearly. So I think
we're converging towards an agreement. I don't know enough about the
notebook to decide whether it should be included now or later. I go with
whatever you guys think is best.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-user/attachments/20120922/e8980b49/attachment.html 

More information about the SciPy-User mailing list