On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:33 AM Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have now drafted these revisions to the NEP to clarify its stance > around > > backwards compatibility, and the type of the "types" argument: > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11943 > > Okay, so this is a pretty substantial change! Before, the NEP's stance > was "we might change anything, at any time, without any warning", > which of course makes it easier to accept the NEP (since we can always > back out), but was also so different from our normal rules that it > seemed important to make sure people weren't using it without > realizing. Now it actually makes a commitment: to not regress on what > functions can be overloaded (though the details might change), and > commits to an abbreviated-but-nonzero deprecation process when we > change things. I get the impression that this is closer to what the > authors were intending in the first place, so that's good! I would > probably have kept the noisy warning and zero commitments for one > release anyway, because IMO it's not a big deal and it rarely hurts to > hedge bets and gather data. But on reflection, I think I am OK with > this level of commitment if that's what y'all want to go for. (After > all, it's not really any stronger than NEP 22's high-level plan.) So, > +0. > Nathaniel -- thanks for your critical reviews here, and your open-mindedness! I've gone ahead and merged the PR to mark the NEP as accepted. Let's get started on the fun part of implementation! Cheers, Stephan
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
