On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:03 PM, David Cournapeau <da...@silveregg.co.jp>wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 6:53 PM, David Cournapeau <da...@silveregg.co.jp > > <mailto:da...@silveregg.co.jp>> wrote: > > > > Darren Dale wrote: > > > > > > Why can't this be called 2.0beta, with a __version__ like 1.9.96? > I > > > don't understand the reluctance to follow numpy's own established > > > conventions. > > > > Mostly because 2.0 conveys the idea that there are significant new > > features, and because it would allow breaking the API as well. I > would > > rather avoid missing this opportunity by making a 2.0 just to allow > > breaking the ABI without significantly reviewing our C API. > > > > > > I think you attach to much importance to the major number. It simply > > marks an ABI change, no matter how minor. > > Yes, but that's highly unusual. The convention is to only break ABI when > it is absolutely necessary, at which point they change the API as well. > > The brand new Numpy 2.0, featuring a shiny new ABI with the same sturdy API used and loved by millions. Hey, it's just advertizing. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
