On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for > end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a > reference, but if we're asking end-users to look at them on a regular > basis then I think we've messed up and should improve our actual > documentation :-) I agree. The usefulness of NEPs (and PEPs) as documentation degrades over time. The functionality matches the NEP at the time that it is accepted, but features evolve over time through the normal, non-NEP development process. Personally, I've frequently drove myself into corners reading a PEP to learn about a new feature only to "learn" things that did not make it into the final implementation or were quickly overtaken by later development. We should not rely on NEPs to provide documentation for users. The regular docs should be the authority. To the extent that the NEPs happen to provide useful documentation for the new feature (and represent a significant amount of sunk effort to draft that documentation), we should feel free to copy-paste that into the regular docs and evolve it from there. -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
