Hi All, I've been reading this thread with amazement and a bit of worry. It seems Nathaniel's proposal is clearly an improvement, even if it is not perfect. But it is in the end for a project where, at least as seen from the outside, the main challenge is not in governance, but rather in having only a small group of people who understand the code well enough that they are able to make and judge modifications. As such, this discussion doesn't seem worthy of the effort, and even less of needless heat and irritation, of the type that seems unlikely would have arisen if this conversation had been in person instead of per e-mail.
Might it be an idea to accept the proposal provisionally, returning to it a year from now with practical experience? This certainly has the benefit of allowing to switch focus to the more pressing and fortunately also more interesting work to be done on interfacing numpy/ndarray nicely with other classes (i.e., __numpy_ufunc__ and/or similar, and the dtype generalisations, which have me quite intrigued -- either might be very interesting for the Quantity class in astropy, as well as for a work-in-progress Variable class [which propagates uncertainties including covariances]). All the best, Marten -- Prof. M. H. van Kerkwijk Dept. of Astronomy & Astroph., 50 St George St., Toronto, ON, M5S 3H4, Canada McLennan Labs, room 1203B, tel: +1(416)9467288, fax: +1(416)9467287 m...@astro.utoronto.ca, http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~mhvk
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion