On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 9:53 AM Matthew Rocklin <mrock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On the backwards compatibility: from an astropy perspective, I would > expect that the introduction of `__array_function__` implies a guarantee > that the *functionality* it provides will remain, > > My guess is that you wouldn't have this expectation if Numpy released this > feature with explicit "Experimental" warnings attached to it. In that > case astropy might just wait before adopting it until that label was > dropped. Projects that were more risk-friendly would then take on the > burden of trying it out, working out some kinks, and then hopefully in a > version or two the "Experimental" label would be dropped and astropy would > step in and adopt it more safely. > > Well, I guess I'll be proving Nathaniel right: I would *definitely* start using __array_function__ in astropy - not being able to concatenate Quantity and other instances which use it has been a long-standing pain. I do think that even for an experimental feature one should be allowed to expect that there will continue to be a way provided by numpy to access the same functionality, i.e., once we allow people to do `np.concatenate(list-of-mimics)`, I think we should consider ourselves committed to providing some way to continue doing that - the experimental tag should only imply that we are not committed to the precise method with which that can be achieved. (Of course, I can be a bit more cavalier than most, since I am hopeful I can help ensure that some method will continue to be present; indeed, the same happened for __array_ufunc__ - I had already written a __numpy_ufunc__ implementation in Quantity and when that stalled in numpy, I picked up and finished the __array_ufunc__ code that Nathan had written.) -- Marten
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion