+1 for the geenralization of kw arguments. This is obviously relevant for __init__ methods, why good old (X,y) should remain positional. Best, Bertrand
> De: "Joel Nothman" <joel.noth...@gmail.com> > À: "Scikit-learn mailing list" <scikit-learn@python.org> > Envoyé: Lundi 16 Septembre 2019 15:28:57 > Objet: Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments > Btw, consensus is defined by 2/3 of cast votes by core devs, according to our > Governance. [ https://scikit-learn.org/dev/about.html#authors | > https://scikit-learn.org/dev/about.html#authors ] lists 20 core devs. > That is, we could consider this resolved after 14 votes in favour. > So far, if I've interpreted correctly: > +1 (adrin, nicolas, hanmin, joel, guillaume, jeremie, thomas, vlad, roman) = > 9. > I've not understood a clear position from Alex. I'm assuming Andreas is in > favour given his comments elsewhere, but we've not seen comment here. > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 20:06, Roman Yurchak < [ mailto:rth.yurc...@gmail.com | > rth.yurc...@gmail.com ] > wrote: >> +1 assuming we are careful about continuing to allow some frequently >> used positional arguments, even in __init__. >> For instance, >> n_components = 10 >> pca = PCA(n_components) >> is still more readable, I think, than, >> pca = PCA(n_components=n_components) >> -- >> Roman >> On 15/09/2019 00:21, Thomas J Fan wrote: >> > +1 from me >>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:12 AM Joel Nothman < [ >>> mailto:joel.noth...@gmail.com | >> > joel.noth...@gmail.com ] >> > <mailto: [ mailto:joel.noth...@gmail.com | joel.noth...@gmail.com ] >> >> > wrote: >> > I am +1 for this change. >> > I agree that users will accommodate the syntax sooner or later. >> > On Fri., 13 Sep. 2019, 7:54 pm Jeremie du Boisberranger, >>> < [ mailto:jeremie.du-boisberran...@inria.fr | >>> jeremie.du-boisberran...@inria.fr >> > ] >>> <mailto: [ mailto:jeremie.du-boisberran...@inria.fr | >> > jeremie.du-boisberran...@inria.fr ] >> wrote: >> > I don't know what is the policy about a sklearn 1.0 w.r.t api >> > changes. >> > If it's meant to be a special release with possible api changes >> > without deprecation cycles, I think this change is a good >> > candidate for 1.0 >> > Otherwise I'm +1 and agree with Guillaume, people will get used >> > to it by using it. >> > Jérémie >> > On 12/09/2019 10:06, Guillaume Lemaître wrote: >> >> To the question: do we want to utilise Python 3's >> >> force-keyword-argument syntax >> >> and to change existing APIs which support arguments >> >> positionally to use this >> >> syntax, via a deprecation period? >> >> I am +1. >> >> IMO, even if the syntax might be unknown, it will remain >> >> unknown until projects >> >> from the ecosystem are not using it. >> >> To the question: which methods should be impacted? >> >> I think we should be as gentle as possible at first. I am a >> >> little concerned about >> >> breaking some codes which were working fine before. >> >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 04:43, Joel Nothman >>>> < [ mailto:joel.noth...@gmail.com | joel.noth...@gmail.com ] <mailto: [ >> >> mailto:joel.noth...@gmail.com | joel.noth...@gmail.com ] >> wrote: >> >> These there details of specific API changes to be decided: >> >> The question being put, as per the SLEP, is: >> >> do we want to utilise Python 3's force-keyword-argument syntax >> >> and to change existing APIs which support arguments >> >> positionally to use this syntax, via a deprecation period? >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> scikit-learn mailing list >>>> [ mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] <mailto: [ >> >> mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] > >>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn | >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ] >> >> -- >> >> Guillaume Lemaitre >> >> INRIA Saclay - Parietal team >> >> Center for Data Science Paris-Saclay >> >> [ https://glemaitre.github.io/ | https://glemaitre.github.io/ ] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> scikit-learn mailing list >>>> [ mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] <mailto: [ >> >> mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] > >>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn | >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ] >> > _______________________________________________ >> > scikit-learn mailing list >>> [ mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] <mailto: [ >> > mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] > >>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn | >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ] >> > _______________________________________________ >> > scikit-learn mailing list >>> [ mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] <mailto: [ >> > mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] > >>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn | >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ] >> > _______________________________________________ >> > scikit-learn mailing list >> > [ mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] >>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn | >> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ] >> _______________________________________________ >> scikit-learn mailing list >> [ mailto:scikit-learn@python.org | scikit-learn@python.org ] >> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn | >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ] > _______________________________________________ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
