On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:46 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > We already use the NEP process for such decisions. This discussion came > from simply from the *idea* of writing such a NEP. > > Nothing has been decided. Only opinions have been shared that might > influence the NEP. This is all pretty premature, though --- migration to > C++ features on a trial branch is some months away were it to happen.
Sure, I know we do have neps, they live in the main numpy repo (which btw, I think they should be moved to a standalone repo to make their management independent of the core code, but that's an easy and minor point we can ignore for now). I was just thinking that this discussion is precisely the kind of thing that would be well served by being organized in a nep, before even jumping into implementation. A nep can precisely help organize a discussion where there's enough to think about and make decisions *before* effort has gone into implementing anything. It's important not to forget that once someone goes far enough down the road of implementing something, this adds pressure to turn the implementation into a fait accompli, simply out of not wanting to throw work away. For a decision as binary as 'rewrite the core in C++ or not', it would seem to me that organizing the problem in a NEP *before* starting to implement something in a trial branch would be precisely the way to go, and that it would actually make the decision process and discussion easier and more productive. Cheers, f _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
