Trivial note: On the subject of naming things (spelling things??) -- should it be:
numpy or Numpy or NumPy ? All three are in the draft NEP 30 ( mostly "NumPy", I noticed this when reading/copy editing the NEP) . Is there an "official" capitalization? My preference, would be to use "numpy", and where practicable, use a "computer" font -- i.e. ``numpy`` in RST. But if there is consensus already for anything else, that's fine, I'd just like to know what it is. -CHB On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:02 AM Peter Andreas Entschev <pe...@entschev.com> wrote: > Apologies for the late reply. I've opened a new PR > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14257 with the changes requested > on clarifying the text. After reading the detailed description, I've > decided to add a subsection "Scope" to clarify the scope where NEP-30 > would be useful. I think the inclusion of this new subsection > complements the "Detail description" forming a complete text w.r.t. > motivation of the NEP, but feel free to point out disagreements with > my suggestion. I've also added a new section "Usage" pointing out how > one would use duck array in replacement to np.asarray where relevant. > > Regarding the naming discussion, I must say I like the idea of keeping > the __array_ prefix, but it seems like that is going to be difficult > given that none of the existing ideas so far play very nicely with > that. So if the general consensus is to go with __numpy_like__, I > would also update the NEP to reflect that changes. FWIW, I > particularly neither like nor dislike __numpy_like__, but I don't have > any better suggestions than that or keeping the current naming. > > Best, > Peter > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 3:40 AM Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:18 PM Charles R Harris < > charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 7:10 PM Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 5:11 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 6:18 PM Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 2:48 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The NEP currently does not say who this is meant for. Would you > expect libraries like SciPy to adopt it for example? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The NEP also (understandably) punts on the question of when > something is a valid duck array. If you want this to be widely used, that > will need an answer or at least some rough guidance though. For example, we > would expect a duck array to have a mean() method, but probably not a ptp() > method. A library author who wants to use np.duckarray() needs to know, > because she can't test with all existing and future duck array > implementations. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I think this is covered in NEP-22 already. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> It's not really. We discussed this briefly in the community call > today, Peter said he will try to add some text. > >>>> > >>>> We should not add new functions to NumPy without indicating who is > supposed to use this, and what need it fills / problem it solves. It seems > pretty clear to me that it's mostly aimed at library authors rather than > end users. And also that mature libraries like SciPy may not immediately > adopt it, because it's too fuzzy - so it's new libraries first, mature > libraries after the dust has settled a bit (I think). > >>> > >>> > >>> I totally agree -- we definitely should clarify this in the docstring > and elsewhere in the docs. An example in the new doc page on "Writing > custom array containers" ( > https://numpy.org/devdocs/user/basics.dispatch.html) would also probably > be appropriate. > >>> > >>>>> > >>>>> As discussed there, I don't think NumPy is in a good position to > pronounce decisive APIs at this time. I would welcome efforts to try, but I > don't think that's essential for now. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> There's no need to pronounce a decisive API that fully covers duck > array. Note that RNumPy is an attempt in that direction (not a full one, > but way better than nothing). In the NEP/docs, at least saying something > along the lines of "if you implement this, we recommend the following > strategy: check if a function is present in Dask, CuPy and Sparse. If so, > it's reasonable to expect any duck array to work here. If not, we suggest > you indicate in your docstring what kinds of duck arrays are accepted, or > what properties they need to have". That's a spec by implementation, which > is less than ideal but better than saying nothing. > >>> > >>> > >>> OK, I agree here as well -- some guidance is better than nothing. > >>> > >>> Two other minor notes on this NEP, concerning naming: > >>> 1. We should have a brief note on why we settled on the name "duck > array". Namely, as discussed in NEP-22, we don't love the "duck" jargon, > but we couldn't come up with anything better since NumPy already uses > "array like" and "any array" for different purposes. > >>> 2. The protocol should use *something* more clearly namespaced as > NumPy specific than __duckarray__. All the other special protocols NumPy > defines start with "__array_". That suggests either __array_duckarray__ > (sounds a little redundant) or __numpy_duckarray__ (which I like the look > of, but is a different from the existing protocols). > >>> > >> > >> `__numpy_like__` ? > > > > > > > > This could work, but I think we would also want to rename the NumPy > function itself to either np.like or np.numpy_like. The later is a little > redundant but definitely more self-descriptive than "duck array". > > > >> > >> Chuck > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > -- 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 chris.bar...@noaa.gov
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion