On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Matthew Rocklin <mrock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> How would the community handle the scipy.sparse matrix subclasses? These >> are still in common use. >> > > They're not going anywhere for quite a while (until the sparse ndarrays > materialize at least). Hence np.matrix needs to be moved, not deleted. We > discussed this earlier this year: https://mail.python.org/ > pipermail/numpy-discussion/2017-January/076332.html > > >> Somewhat related: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/8162 >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:13 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < >>> m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would >>>> be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix >>>> class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack >>>> of support for stacks of matrices. >>> >>> > I'd suggest any release in the next couple of years is fine,but the one > where we drop Python 2 support is probably the worst choice. That's one of > the few things the core Python devs got 100% right with the Python 3 move: > advocate that in the 2->3 transition packages would not make any API > changes in order to make porting the least painful. > > Ralf > Agree, we don't want to pile in too many changes at once. I think the big sticking point is the sparse matrices in SciPy, even issuing a DeprecationWarning could be problematic as long as there are sparse matrices. May I suggest that we put together an NEP for the NumPy side of things? Ralf, does SciPy have a mechanism for proposing such changes? <snip> Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
