On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Eli Bressert <ebress...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > That's a good point regarding the range function names. But, I think >> > the issue still stands on the readability of the ptp function. >> > Regarding PEP20 it's stated that "readability counts." >> > >> > If you regard what ptp is supposed to replace, array.max() - >> > array.min(), the aforementioned follows the PEP20 better as it is more >> > readable. If valuerange() is not an acceptable name, maybe span()? >> >> Sure, it's probably more readable, and that would be the controlling >> factor if this were a new function. But that's not really the >> operative question here. Are the gains in readability worth the >> nontrivial costs of deprecating and removing the old name? I, for one, >> am generally not in favor of such deprecations. > > > That's not the only option though. I'm -1 on deprecation, but +0 on renaming > and keeping ptp as an alias. The function name is really quite poor.
I think it is a matter of context. I don't know the history of that function, but coming from a signal processing background, its meaning was obvious to me. It is a peak to peak is a very common operations when dealing with audio file, for example (that's how most wave display work AFAIK). I am certainly -1 on the deprecation as well, and -0 on alias. David _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
