Hi Stefan, On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
> Hi Marten, > > On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 12:11:38 -0400, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: > > Third, we could actual implementing the logical groupings identified in > the > > code base (and describing them!). Currently, it is a mess: for the C > files, > > I typically have to grep to even find where things are done, and while > for > > the functions defined in python files that is not necessary, many have > > historical rather than logical groupings (looking at you, > `from_numeric`!), > > and even more descriptive ones like `shape_base` are split over `lib` and > > `core`. I think it would help everybody if we went to a python-like > layout, > > with a true core and libraries such as polynomial, fft, ma, etc. > > How hard do you think it would be to address this issue? You seem to > have some notion of which pain points should be prioritized, and it > might be useful to jot those down somewhere (tracking issue on GitHub?). > The python side would, I think, not be too hard. But I don't really have that much of a notion - it would very much be informed by making a list first. For the C parts, I feel even more at a loss: one really would have to start with a summary of what is actually there (and I think the organization may well be quite logical already; I've not so felt it was wrong as in need of an overview). Somewhat of an aside, but relevant for the general discussion: updating/rewriting the user documentation may well be the best *first* step. It certainly doesn't hurt to try to make some list now, but my guess that the best one will emerge only when one tries to summarize what a new user should know/understand. All the best, Marten
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
