On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:16:22AM -0700, Timothy Hochberg wrote: > I prefer 'all' for this since it has the correct meaning. 'api' assuming > that one can remember what it means doesn't fit. The 'all' module would > not contain the api, at least not the preferred api (in my book at least), > but it would contain everything.
Sure, but everybody does it different. Convention are important, especially in coding. See http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/sep-07/not-sucking for a good argumentation about the point. I agree 100% with the author. Especially the conclusion. > If "from numpy.all import *" is really too complicated, which although > possible, seems a little disheartening, How much have you tried forcing Python on people who don't care at all about computers. In my work we spend maybe 2% of our time dealing with computers, and the rest struggling with electronics, optics, lasers, mechanical design... People don't want to have to learn _anything_ about computers. I am not saying they are right, I am however saying that we need to provide easy entry point, from where they can evolve and learn. > I suspect it would be easy enough to have a separate module that > pulled everything in so that you could use "from big_numpy import > *". Or, to preserve backward compatibility, make numpy the unsplit > namespace and expose the split namespace under a different name, > let's say 'np' because that's what I already use as a numpy > abbreviation. That's the only solution I see wich would make everybody happy. IMHO the pylab option is quite nice: matplotlib is nice and modular, but pylab has it all. Use whichever you want. Now the difficulty is to find a good name for the latter module/namespace. Cheers, Ga�l
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion