Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal to accept NEP-18, __array_function__ protocol
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > I have now drafted these revisions to the NEP to clarify its stance around > backwards compatibility, and the type of the "types" argument: > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11943 Okay, so this is a pretty substantial change! Before, the NEP's stance was "we might change anything, at any time, without any warning", which of course makes it easier to accept the NEP (since we can always back out), but was also so different from our normal rules that it seemed important to make sure people weren't using it without realizing. Now it actually makes a commitment: to not regress on what functions can be overloaded (though the details might change), and commits to an abbreviated-but-nonzero deprecation process when we change things. I get the impression that this is closer to what the authors were intending in the first place, so that's good! I would probably have kept the noisy warning and zero commitments for one release anyway, because IMO it's not a big deal and it rarely hurts to hedge bets and gather data. But on reflection, I think I am OK with this level of commitment if that's what y'all want to go for. (After all, it's not really any stronger than NEP 22's high-level plan.) So, +0. -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] Proposal to accept NEP-18, __array_function__ protocol
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:33 AM Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > > I have now drafted these revisions to the NEP to clarify its stance > around > > backwards compatibility, and the type of the "types" argument: > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11943 > > Okay, so this is a pretty substantial change! Before, the NEP's stance > was "we might change anything, at any time, without any warning", > which of course makes it easier to accept the NEP (since we can always > back out), but was also so different from our normal rules that it > seemed important to make sure people weren't using it without > realizing. Now it actually makes a commitment: to not regress on what > functions can be overloaded (though the details might change), and > commits to an abbreviated-but-nonzero deprecation process when we > change things. I get the impression that this is closer to what the > authors were intending in the first place, so that's good! I would > probably have kept the noisy warning and zero commitments for one > release anyway, because IMO it's not a big deal and it rarely hurts to > hedge bets and gather data. But on reflection, I think I am OK with > this level of commitment if that's what y'all want to go for. (After > all, it's not really any stronger than NEP 22's high-level plan.) So, > +0. > Nathaniel -- thanks for your critical reviews here, and your open-mindedness! I've gone ahead and merged the PR to mark the NEP as accepted. Let's get started on the fun part of implementation! Cheers, Stephan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[Numpy-discussion] Proposal to accept NEP 22: Duck typing for NumPy arrays
I propose to accept NEP-22, "Duck typing for NumPy arrays – high level overview": http://www.numpy.org/neps/nep-0022-ndarray-duck-typing-overview.html This NEP didn't generate much (any?) discussion on the mailing list when Nathaniel and I sent it out a few months ago. But I still think the high-level vision makes sense, and it would be nice to mark this informational NEP as accepted to lay-out a clear vision for how we want to handle "duck arrays". One nice thing about informational NEPs is that they don't commit us to any particular choices, so marking the NEP as is accepted is relatively low risk :). There are still plenty of details to refine (as we did in NEP-18), but we can take our time on that. Cheers, Stephan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Proposal to accept NEP 22: Duck typing for NumPy arrays
I read the NEP again and think it is a good and useful one (also in discussing why NEP 16 was not a good idea!). -- Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
