On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:46 AM Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 12:13 AM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > I would reserve warnings for the cases where the current behavior is >> something no one really wants, like mixing slices and integer arrays. >> >> These are the cases that would only be available under `legacy_index`. >> > > I'm still leaning towards not warning on current, unproblematic common > uses. It's unnecessary churn for currently working, understandable code. I > would still reserve warnings and deprecation for the cases where the > current behavior gives us something that no one wants. Those are the real > traps that people need to be warned away from. > > If someone is mixing slices and integer indices, that's a really good sign > that they thought indexing behaved in a different way (e.g. orthogonal > indexing). > > If someone is just using multiple index arrays that would currently not > give an error, that's actually a really good sign that they are using it > correctly and are getting the semantics that they desired. If they wanted > orthogonal indexing, it is *really* likely that their index arrays would > *not* broadcast together. And even if they did, the wrong shape of the > result is one of the more easily noticed things. These are not silent > errors that would motivate adding a new warning. > Of course, I would definitely support adding more information to the various IndexError messages to point people to `.oindex` and `.vindex`. I think that would guide more people to correct their code than adding a new warning to code that currently executes (which is likely not erroneous), and it would cause no churn. -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
