On 03/01/15 20:49, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > i.e., slow-incremental-change has actually worked well in his > experience. (And in particular, the np.diagonal issue only comes in as > an example to illustrate what he means by the phrase "slow continuous > change" -- this particular change hasn't actually broken anything in his > code.) OTOH the big problem that motivated his post was that his code is > all written against the APIs of the ancient and long-abandoned Numeric > project, and he finds the costs of transitioning them to the "new" numpy > APIs to be prohibitively expensive, i.e. this big-bang transition broke > his code.
Given that a big-bang transition broke his code everywhere, I don't really see why he wants more of them. The question of reproducible research is orthogonal to this, I think. Sturla _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
