[Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
Hi All, I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack of support for stacks of matrices. For 1.17, minimum python supposedly is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing this were gh-10123 and 10132). What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). All the best, Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Nov 30, 2017 09:24, "Marten van Kerkwijk" wrote: Hi All, I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack of support for stacks of matrices. For 1.17, minimum python supposedly is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing this were gh-10123 and 10132). What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). All the best, Marten I still think moving it out into its own package would be better, making it clear that anyone who cares about the class should step up because numpy developers will not do any additional work on it. Similar to how weave was handled with scipy. So simultaneous with the deprecation you release a package with the matrix class. Then people have until the deprecation period is over to port (which should just be a matter of changing the imports). ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
+1 (not that my lurking vote should necessarily carry much weight). Rip it out asap. The existence of the matrix class has been literally the single biggest source of confusion and subtle bugs in my and my students' codes for years. Best, Chris > On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk > wrote: > > Hi All, > > I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would > be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix > class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack > of support for stacks of matrices. For 1.17, minimum python supposedly > is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply > operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case > for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite > a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing > this were gh-10123 and 10132). > > What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to > add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for > python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). > > All the best, > > Marten > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
This is exactly what we did with the bokeh.charts deprecation. Moving to a separate projects was both a huge relief for the developers as well as a great way to focus and clarify expectations for users. Bryan > On Nov 30, 2017, at 10:20, Chris Laumann wrote: > > +1 (not that my lurking vote should necessarily carry much weight). Rip it > out asap. > > The existence of the matrix class has been literally the single biggest > source of confusion and subtle bugs in my and my students' codes for years. > > Best, Chris > >> On Nov 30, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk >> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would >> be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix >> class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack >> of support for stacks of matrices. For 1.17, minimum python supposedly >> is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply >> operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case >> for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite >> a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing >> this were gh-10123 and 10132). >> >> What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to >> add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for >> python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). >> >> All the best, >> >> Marten >> ___ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
Moving to a subpackage may indeed make more sense, though it might not help as much with getting rid of the hacks inside other parts of numpy to keep matrix working. In that respect it seems a bit different at least from weave. Then again, independently of whether we remove or release a separate package, it is probably best to start by moving all tests involving matrix to matrixlib/tests, so we can at least get a sense of what hacks are actually present. -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
This would be really good to remove the apparent confusion. Moreover, I think cleanly explaining why using "np.matrix" is not a good idea *before* announcing the news would encourage people to accept this decision along the way. That would greatly reduce the sporadic "the devs are deprecating stuff as they see fit without asking us" sentiment. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Moving to a subpackage may indeed make more sense, though it might not > help as much with getting rid of the hacks inside other parts of numpy > to keep matrix working. In that respect it seems a bit different at > least from weave. > > Then again, independently of whether we remove or release a separate > package, it is probably best to start by moving all tests involving > matrix to matrixlib/tests, so we can at least get a sense of what > hacks are actually present. > > -- Marten > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would > be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix > class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack > of support for stacks of matrices. I don't think the matrix class was a bad idea at the time. numpy was the underdog, I came from GAUSS and Matlab and numpy arrays were just weird, especially loosing a dimension all the time and the heavy required use of np.newaxis. I guess nowadays kids don't learn `matrix` languages first anymore. recarrays are another half-hearted feature in numpy that is mostly obsolete with pandas and pandas_like DataFrames in other packages. (I don't mind the changes, but the deprecation cycle is often short, especially for users like me that update numpy only about every 3 main versions.) Josef > For 1.17, minimum python supposedly > is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply > operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case > for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite > a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing > this were gh-10123 and 10132). > > What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to > add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for > python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). > All the best, > > Marten > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
How would the community handle the scipy.sparse matrix subclasses? These are still in common use. Somewhat related: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/8162 On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:13 PM, wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < > m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would >> be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix >> class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack >> of support for stacks of matrices. > > > I don't think the matrix class was a bad idea at the time. > > numpy was the underdog, I came from GAUSS and Matlab and numpy > arrays were just weird, especially loosing a dimension all the time > and the heavy required use of np.newaxis. > I guess nowadays kids don't learn `matrix` languages first anymore. > > recarrays are another half-hearted feature in numpy that is mostly > obsolete with pandas and pandas_like DataFrames in other > packages. > > > (I don't mind the changes, but the deprecation cycle is often short, > especially for users like me that update numpy only about every 3 main > versions.) > > Josef > > >> For 1.17, minimum python supposedly >> is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply >> operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case >> for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite >> a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing >> this were gh-10123 and 10132). >> >> What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to >> add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for >> python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). >> > All the best, >> >> Marten >> ___ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> > > > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Matthew Rocklin wrote: > How would the community handle the scipy.sparse matrix subclasses? These > are still in common use. > They're not going anywhere for quite a while (until the sparse ndarrays materialize at least). Hence np.matrix needs to be moved, not deleted. We discussed this earlier this year: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2017-January/076332.html > Somewhat related: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/8162 > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:13 PM, wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < >> m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would >>> be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix >>> class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack >>> of support for stacks of matrices. >> >> I'd suggest any release in the next couple of years is fine,but the one where we drop Python 2 support is probably the worst choice. That's one of the few things the core Python devs got 100% right with the Python 3 move: advocate that in the 2->3 transition packages would not make any API changes in order to make porting the least painful. Ralf > >> I don't think the matrix class was a bad idea at the time. >> >> numpy was the underdog, I came from GAUSS and Matlab and numpy >> arrays were just weird, especially loosing a dimension all the time >> and the heavy required use of np.newaxis. >> I guess nowadays kids don't learn `matrix` languages first anymore. >> >> recarrays are another half-hearted feature in numpy that is mostly >> obsolete with pandas and pandas_like DataFrames in other >> packages. >> >> >> (I don't mind the changes, but the deprecation cycle is often short, >> especially for users like me that update numpy only about every 3 main >> versions.) >> >> Josef >> >> >>> For 1.17, minimum python supposedly >>> is >=3.5, so we will be guaranteed to have the matrix multiply >>> operator @ available, and hence there is arguably even less of a case >>> for keeping the matrix class; removing it would allow taking out quite >>> a bit of accumulated special-casing (the immediate reasons for writing >>> this were gh-10123 and 10132). >>> >>> What do people think? If we do go in this direction, we might want to >>> add PendingDeprecationWarning for 1.15 (maybe DeprecationWarning for >>> python3; for python2 matrix would never disappear). >>> >> All the best, >>> >>> Marten >>> ___ >>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >>> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >>> >> >> >> ___ >> NumPy-Discussion mailing list >> NumPy-Discussion@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >> >> > > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:17 AM, Matthew Rocklin > wrote: > >> How would the community handle the scipy.sparse matrix subclasses? These >> are still in common use. >> > > They're not going anywhere for quite a while (until the sparse ndarrays > materialize at least). Hence np.matrix needs to be moved, not deleted. We > discussed this earlier this year: https://mail.python.org/ > pipermail/numpy-discussion/2017-January/076332.html > > >> Somewhat related: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/8162 >> >> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 1:13 PM, wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < >>> m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi All, I wondered if the move to python3-only starting with numpy 1.17 would be a good reason to act on what we all seem to agree: that the matrix class was a bad idea, with its overriding of multiplication and lack of support for stacks of matrices. >>> >>> > I'd suggest any release in the next couple of years is fine,but the one > where we drop Python 2 support is probably the worst choice. That's one of > the few things the core Python devs got 100% right with the Python 3 move: > advocate that in the 2->3 transition packages would not make any API > changes in order to make porting the least painful. > > Ralf > Agree, we don't want to pile in too many changes at once. I think the big sticking point is the sparse matrices in SciPy, even issuing a DeprecationWarning could be problematic as long as there are sparse matrices. May I suggest that we put together an NEP for the NumPy side of things? Ralf, does SciPy have a mechanism for proposing such changes? Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 10:13, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > recarrays are another half-hearted feature in numpy that is mostly > obsolete with pandas and pandas_like DataFrames in other > packages. I'm fully on board with factoring out np.matrix into a subpackage. But I would not touch structured arrays; they are quite useful, and sometimes perform surprisingly well compared to the other solutions around. Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 11:39, Charles R Harris wrote: > Agree, we don't want to pile in too many changes at once. I think the big > sticking point is the sparse matrices in SciPy, even issuing a > DeprecationWarning could be problematic as long as there are sparse matrices. Could you explain what you mean by SciPy sparse matrices being a big sticking point? Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
Hi Ralf, Sorry not to have recalled the previous thread. Your point about not doing things in the python 2->3 move makes sense; handy for me is no reason to give users an incentive not to move to python3 because their matrix-dependent code breaks. It does sound like, given the use of sparse, a separate package - or perhaps (temporary) inclusion in scipy - would be the way to go. In turn, collecting as much of the matrix tests and work-arounds together in the `matrixlib` would be the right first step. And, even better, to collect thoughts in a NEP. Now if only I had not written this while procrastinating on other things... All the best, Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 10:13, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote: > > recarrays are another half-hearted feature in numpy that is mostly > obsolete with pandas and pandas_like DataFrames in other > packages. > > > I'm fully on board with factoring out np.matrix into a subpackage. But I > would not touch structured arrays; they are quite useful, and sometimes > perform surprisingly well compared to the other solutions around. I think Josef specifically meant `recarrays`, which give access to elements of a structured array via attribute access. I'd tend to agree with him that those turned out not to be such a great idea. But (I think) nobody is arguing we should get rid of arrays with structured dtypes - I use them regularly myself too. -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 12:02, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: > I think Josef specifically meant `recarrays`, which give access to > elements of a structured array via attribute access. I'd tend to agree > with him that those turned out not to be such a great idea. But (I > think) nobody is arguing we should get rid of arrays with structured > dtypes - I use them regularly myself too. Ah, okay, that makes sense! Which reminds me: while these are quite useful, they're not always particularly pleasant to use. A good first improvement would be to allow columnar printing, and a few utility functions to give you some of the basic functionality of pandas (calculating descriptive statistics like mean, dropping NaN rows, some equivalent of groupby). All these are only a few lines of Python, but can be annoying to figure out. If this sounds appealing, I'd be willing to put together a small NEP. Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On 2017/11/30 12:00 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: I think Josef specifically meant `recarrays`, which give access to elements of a structured array via attribute access. I'd tend to agree with him that those turned out not to be such a great idea. But (I I have found recarrays to be useful, providing an alternative view that can be convenient. What is the problem with them? Eric ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
Unlike for matrix, it is not so much a problem as an unclear use case - the main thing they bring to structured dtype arrays is access by attribute, which is slower than just doing getting the field by its key. Anyway, I don't think anybody is suggesting to remove them - they're not a problem in the way matrix is, with its shape-mangling, etc. -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
An NEP on utility functions for structured array definitely sounds appealing to me. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 12:02, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: >> I think Josef specifically meant `recarrays`, which give access to >> elements of a structured array via attribute access. I'd tend to agree >> with him that those turned out not to be such a great idea. But (I >> think) nobody is arguing we should get rid of arrays with structured >> dtypes - I use them regularly myself too. > > Ah, okay, that makes sense! > > Which reminds me: while these are quite useful, they're not always > particularly pleasant to use. A good first improvement would be to > allow columnar printing, and a few utility functions to give you some of > the basic functionality of pandas (calculating descriptive statistics > like mean, dropping NaN rows, some equivalent of groupby). All these > are only a few lines of Python, but can be annoying to figure out. If > this sounds appealing, I'd be willing to put together a small NEP. > > Stéfan > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: >> I'd suggest any release in the next couple of years is fine,but the one >> where we drop Python 2 support is probably the worst choice. That's one of >> the few things the core Python devs got 100% right with the Python 3 move: >> advocate that in the 2->3 transition packages would not make any API changes >> in order to make porting the least painful. > > > Agree, we don't want to pile in too many changes at once. I think the big > sticking point is the sparse matrices in SciPy, even issuing a > DeprecationWarning could be problematic as long as there are sparse > matrices. May I suggest that we put together an NEP for the NumPy side of > things? Ralf, does SciPy have a mechanism for proposing such changes? Agreed here as well... while I want to get rid of np.matrix as much as anyone, doing that anytime soon would be *really* disruptive. - There are tons of little scripts out there written by people who didn't know better; we do want them to learn not to use np.matrix but breaking all their scripts is a painful way to do that - There are major projects like scikit-learn that simply have no alternative to using np.matrix, because of scipy.sparse. So I think the way forward is something like: - Now or whenever someone gets together a PR: issue a PendingDeprecationWarning in np.matrix.__init__ (unless it kills performance for scikit-learn and friends), and put a big warning box at the top of the docs. The idea here is to not actually break anyone's code, but start to get out the message that we definitely don't think anyone should use this if they have any alternative. - After there's an alternative to scipy.sparse: ramp up the warnings, possibly all the way to FutureWarning so that existing scripts don't break but they do get noisy warnings - Eventually, if we think it will reduce maintenance costs: split it into a subpackage I expect that one way or another we'll be maintaining matrix for quite some time, and I agree with whoever said that most of the burden seems to be in keeping the rest of numpy working sensibly with it, so I don't think moving it into a subpackage is itself going to make a big different either way. To me the logic is more like, if/when we decide to actually break everyone's code by making `np.matrix` raise AttributeError, then we should probably provide some package they can import to get their code limping along again, and if we're going to do that anyway then probably we should split it out first and shake out any bugs before we make `np.matrix` start raising errors. But it's going to be quite some time until we reach the "break everyone's code" stage, given just how much code is out there using matrix, so there's no point in making detailed plans right now. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
On Thu, Nov 30, 2017, at 16:15, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > PendingDeprecationWarning in np.matrix.__init__ (unless it kills > performance for scikit-learn and friends), and put a big warning box > at the top of the docs. The idea here is to not actually break > anyone's code, but start to get out the message that we definitely > don't think anyone should use this if they have any alternative. > > - After there's an alternative to scipy.sparse: ramp up the warnings, > possibly all the way to FutureWarning so that existing scripts don't > break but they do get noisy warnings > > - Eventually, if we think it will reduce maintenance costs: split it > into a subpackage Can't we make `np.matrix` into a new package right now, and have NumPy depend on it internally? At that point, start warning users that they should also be using the external package, and eventually just remove the shim in NumPy. Stéfan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
Hi Nathaniel, Thanks for the concrete suggestion: see https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/10142 I think this is useful independent of exactly how the eventual move to a new package would work; next step might be to collect all matrix tests in the `libmatrix` sub-module. All the best, Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Deprecate matrices in 1.15 and remove in 1.17?
> - There are major projects like scikit-learn that simply have no > alternative to using np.matrix, because of scipy.sparse. Well, we have no love for np.matrix, we just use scipy.sparse and np.ndarray. > - After there's an alternative to scipy.sparse: +1 for alternative to scipy.sparse before transition. Gaël ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
