On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:35 AM Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 1:05 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > I think this is potentially useful, but *far* more prescriptive and >> > detailed than I had in mind. Both you and Nathaniel seem to have not >> > understood what I mean by "out of scope", so I think that's my fault in >> > not being explicit enough. I *do not* want to prescribe behavior. Instead, >> > a simple yes/no for each function in numpy and method on ndarray. >> >> So yes/no are the answers. But what's the question? >> >> "If we were redesigning numpy in a fantasy world without external >> constraints or compatibility issues, would we include this function?" >> "Is this function well designed?" >> "Do we think that supporting this function is necessary to achieve >> practical duck-array compatibility?" >> "If someone implements this function, should we give them a 'numpy >> core compliant!' logo to put on their website?" >> "Do we recommend that people use this function in new code?" >> "If we were trying to design a minimal set of primitives and implement >> the rest of numpy in terms of them, then is this function a good >> candidate for a primitive?" >> >> These are all really different things, and useful for solving >> different problems... I feel like you might be lumping them together >> some? > > > No, I feel like you just want to see a real proposal. At this point I've > gotten some really useful feedback, in particular from Marten (thanks!), and > I have a better idea of what to do. So I'll answer a few of your questions, > and propose to leave the rest till I actually have some more solid to > discuss. That will likely answer many of your questions.
Okay, that's fine. You scared me a bit with the initial email, but I really am trying to be helpful :-). I'm not looking for a detailed proposal; I'm just super confused right now about what you're trying to accomplish or how this table of yes/no values will help do it. I look forward to hearing more! >> I'm seeing this as a living document (a NEP?) > > NEP would work. Although I'd prefer a way to be able to reference some fixed > version of it rather than it being always in flux. When I say "living" I mean: it would be seen as documenting our consensus and necessarily fuzzy rather than normative and precise like most NEPs. Maybe this is obvious and not worth mentioning. But I wouldn't expect it to change rapidly. Unless our collective opinions change rapidly I guess, but that seems unlikely. (And of course NEPs are in git so we always have the ability to link to a point-in-time snapshot if we need to reference something.) -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
