On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for
> >> end-users -- they're certainly useful
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for
>> end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a
>> reference, but if we're asking end-users to l
I was planning on looking at/working on the main doc generating system
and the main webpage (for numpy and scipy) soon (over the winter
break), but I didn't want to get too many things in the discussion
right now. My immediate interest is getting agreement on the first
two items:
- A purpose and
On 5 December 2017 at 17:32, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman
>> > wrote:
>> >> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps ar
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman
> > wrote:
> >> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps are:
> >>
> >> - I'll draft a purpose and process NEP based on PE
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for
> end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a
> reference, but if we're asking end-users to look at them on a regular
> basis then I think we've messed up
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman
> wrote:
>> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps are:
>>
>> - I'll draft a purpose and process NEP based on PEP 1 and a few other
>> projects.
>> - I'll also create a draft NEP temp
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since we expect to be writing some NEPs in the near future, Nathaniel
> and I were looking at how they're organized, and realized that the
> process is a bit underspecified and it's a hard to tell the status of
> things.
>
> So
OK, in that case let's get to work over in
https://github.com/numpy/numpy_stubs!
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:43 PM Fernando Perez wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
>> > This discussion has died down, but I do
Hi all,
Since we expect to be writing some NEPs in the near future, Nathaniel
and I were looking at how they're organized, and realized that the
process is a bit underspecified and it's a hard to tell the status of
things.
So I'm thinking of putting together some better tools and
documentation, a
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> > This discussion has died down, but I don't want to lose momentum .
> >
> > It sounds like there is at least strong interest from a subset of our
> > community in type annotations. A
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote:
> This discussion has died down, but I don't want to lose momentum .
>
> It sounds like there is at least strong interest from a subset of our
> community in type annotations. Are there any objections to the first part of
> my plan, to start de
This discussion has died down, but I don't want to lose momentum .
It sounds like there is at least strong interest from a subset of our
community in type annotations. Are there any objections to the first part
of my plan, to start developing type stubs for NumPy in separate repository?
We'll com
13 matches
Mail list logo
