On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 4:47 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:39 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > It's not *any* cost, this goes deep and wide, it's one of the basic > > concepts of numpy that you want to rename. > > The proposal I last made was to change the default name to 'layout' > after some period to be agreed - say - P - with suitable warning in > the docstring up until that time, and after, and leave 'order' as an > alias forever. > The above paragraph is simply incorrect. Your last proposal also included deprecation warnings and a future backwards compatibility break by removing 'order'. If you now say you're not proposing steps 3 and 4 anymore, then you're back to what I called option (2) - duplicate keywords forever. Which for me is undesirable, for reasons I already mentioned. Ralf P.S. being called short-sighted and damaging numpy by responding to a proposal you now say you didn't make is pretty damn annoying. P.P.S. expect an identical response from me to future proposals that include backwards compatibility breaks of heavily used functions for something that's not a functional enhancement or bug fix. Such proposals are just not OK. P.P.P.S. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "default keyword". If layout overrules order and layout's default value is not None, you're still proposing a backwards compatibility break.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
