There's probably a better forum for this conversation, but... Barry Wark wrote: > Perhaps we should consider two use cases: interactive use ala Matlab > and larger code bases.
A couple key points -- yes, interactive use is different than larger code bases, but I think it's a "Bad Idea" to promite totally different coding styles for these cases for a couple reasons: -- One usually is doing both at once. I was a long-time, every day Matlab user, and hardly did anything of consequence interactively. I learned very quickly that it made a whole lot more sense to write a five line script that I could save, edit, etc. than do stuff interactively. Once I got something working, parts of that five line script might get cut&pasted into "real" code. I do still test one or two lines interactively, but even then, I want the style to be something I can put in my code. 2) consistency in docs and examples is important, recommending different styles for interactive and programming use is just going to confuse people more. 3) even for folks that do a lot of interactive use, they are likely to write larger scale code at some point, and then they would need to learn something new. > In the first case, being able to import * saves > a lot of typing No, it saves a little typing, if you're using an OOO style anyway. > and the namespace polution problem isn't a big deal. Yes, it can be. A good interactive environment will be able to do things like method and command completion -- namespace pollution keeps that from working well. > Returning to the OP's questions, why couldn't both cases be helped by > creating a "meta-package" for numpy, scipy, and matplotlib? For the > sake of argument, lets call the package "plab". Existing code could be > affected by changing the individual packages, but a package that > essentially does > > from pylab import * > from numpy import * > from scipy import * The issue with this is that you've now hidden where things are coming from. People seeing examples using that package will have no idea where things come from. and by the way, the current "pylab", as delivered with MPL, pretty much does this already. I think we need to move away from that, rather than putting even more into pylab. Matthew Brett wrote: > The downside about making numpy / python like matlab is that > you soon realize that you really have to think about your problems > differently, and write code in a different way. Good point. A part of good Pythonic code is namespaces and OOO style. New users might as well learn the whole pile at once. That all being said, it would be nice to establish a standard convention for how to import the key packages. I use: import numpy as N import matplotlib as MPL But I don't really care that much, if we can come to any kind of community consensus, I'll follow it. The goal would be for all docs, Wiki entries, examples on the mailing lists, etc. to use the same style. -Chris -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Matplotlib-users mailing list Matplotlib-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/matplotlib-users
