Hi, On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 1:51 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > 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. >>> >>> You might not have read my follow-up proposing to drop steps 3 and 4 >>> if you felt they were unacceptable. >>> >>> > 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. >>> >>> No, I did make that proposal, and in the spirit of negotiation and >>> consensus, I subsequently modified my proposal, as I hope you'd expect >>> in this situation. >> >> >> You have had clear NOs to the various incarnations of your proposal from 3 >> active developers of this community, not once but two or three times from >> each of those developers. Furthermore you have got only a couple of +0.5s, >> after 90 emails no one else seems to feel that this is a change we really >> have to have this change. Therefore I don't expect another modification of >> your proposal, I expect you to drop it. > > OK - I think I have a better understanding of the 'model' now. > >> As another poster said, this thread has run its course. The technical issues >> are clear, and apparently we're going to have to agree to disagree about the >> seriousness of the confusion. Please please go and fix the docs in the way >> you deem best, and leave it at that. And triple please not another >> governance thread.
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/3294 Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
