Indeed, for scikit-learn, this would be a major problem. Gaël
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 05:55:52PM +1000, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote: > To reiterate my point on a previous thread, I don't think this should happen > until NumPy 2.0. This *will* break a massive number of doctests, and what's > worse, it will do so in a way that makes it difficult to support doctesting > for > both 1.13 and 1.14. I don't see a big enough benefit to these changes to > justify breaking everyone's tests before an API-breaking version bump. > On 30 Jun 2017, 6:42 AM +1000, Marten van Kerkwijk > <m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com>, > wrote: > To add to Allan's message: point (2), the printing of 0-d arrays, is > the one that is the most important in the sense that it rectifies a > really strange situation, where the printing cannot be logically > controlled by the same mechanism that controls >=1-d arrays (see PR). > While point 3 can also be considered a bug fix, 1 & 4 are at some > level matters of taste; my own reason for supporting their > implementation now is that the 0-d arrays already forces me (or, > specifically, astropy) to rewrite quite a few doctests, and I'd rather > have everything in one go -- in this respect, it is a pity that this > is separate from the earlier change in printing for structured arrays > (which was also much for the better, but broke a lot of doctests). > -- Marten > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Allan Haldane <allanhald...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Hello all, > There are various updates to array printing in preparation for numpy > 1.14. See https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/9139/ > Some are quite likely to break other projects' doc-tests which expect > a > particular str or repr of arrays, so I'd like to warn the list in case > anyone has opinions. > The current proposed changes, from most to least painful by my > reckoning, are: > 1. > For float arrays, an extra space previously used for the sign position > will now be omitted in many cases. Eg, `repr(arange(4.))` will now > return 'array([0., 1., 2., 3.])' instead of 'array([ 0., 1., 2., > 3.])'. > 2. > The printing of 0d arrays is overhauled. This is a bit finicky to > describe, please see the release note in the PR. As an example of the > effect of this, the `repr(np.array(0.))` now prints as 'array(0.)` > instead of 'array(0.0)'. Also the repr of 0d datetime arrays is now > like > "array('2005-04-04', dtype='datetime64[D]')" instead of > "array(datetime.date(2005, 4, 4), dtype='datetime64[D]')". > 3. > User-defined dtypes which did not properly implement their `repr` (and > `str`) should do so now. Otherwise it now falls back to > `object.__repr__`, which will return something ugly like > `<mytype object at 0x7f37f1b4e918>`. (Previously you could depend on > only implementing the `item` method and the repr of that would be > printed. But no longer, because this risks infinite recursions.). > 4. > Bool arrays of size 1 with a 'True' value will now omit a space, so > that > `repr(array([True]))` is now 'array([True])' instead of > 'array([ True])'. > Allan > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion -- Gael Varoquaux Researcher, INRIA Parietal NeuroSpin/CEA Saclay , Bat 145, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette France Phone: ++ 33-1-69-08-79-68 http://gael-varoquaux.info http://twitter.com/GaelVaroquaux _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
