On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:08 PM Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2023, at 12:27, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > Okay, as long as we keep in mind that it should contain all these > not-for-main-namespace functions/classes, it seems fine with me. We can > live with two namespaces (`types` and `exceptions`), but more would get a > bit too much. We were planning to use `np.lib.*` for more detailed > user-facing functions that didn't belong in the main namespace, so let's > make sure that we don't end up with >2 of these kinds of namespaces right > below the top level one. > > > If it's mainly for internal use, we can also use sub-namespaces under lib > right now, and not add those to the main namespace with the next release? > I.e., we can create `lib.types`, `lib.exceptions` and whatever we want, and > then import lib as _np or similar internally. > It's not for internal use, the point of these proposals is to expose public namespaces that contain objects needed by third-party packages. So the current proposal seems better than throwing it into the `np.lib.*` mix. Cheers, Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
