On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <da...@student.matnat.uio.no> wrote: > Anne Archibald wrote: >> 2009/12/9 Dr. Phillip M. Feldman <pfeld...@verizon.net>: >> >> >>> When I recently tried to validate a code, the answers were wrong, and it >>> took two full days to track down the cause. I am now forced to reconsider >>> carefully whether Python/NumPy is a suitable platform for serious scientific >>> computing. >>> >> >> While I find the current numpy complex->real conversion annoying, I >> have to say, this kind of rhetoric does not benefit your cause. It >> sounds childish and manipulative, and makes even people who agree in >> principle want to tell you to go ahead and use MATLAB and stop >> pestering us. We are not here to sell you on numpy; if you hate it, >> don't use it. We are here because *we* use it, warts and all, and we >> want to discuss interesting topics related to numpy. That you would >> have implemented it differently is not very interesting if you are not >> even willing to understand why it is the way it is and what a change >> would cost, let alone propose a workable way to improve. >> > At this point I want to remind us about Charles Harris' very workable > proposal: Raise a warning. That should both keep backward compatability > and prevent people from wasting days. (Hopefully, we can avoid wasting > days discussing this issue too :-) ).
+1 Completely agree. And to be clear, I realize the need not to break anything relying on this behavior. I just don't want people passing this off as a non-issue/'not a big deal'. Ryan -- Ryan May Graduate Research Assistant School of Meteorology University of Oklahoma _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion