On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:42 PM Peter Andreas Entschev <pe...@entschev.com> wrote:
> My answer to that: "NumPy". Reference: logo at the top of > https://numpy.org/neps/index.html . > Yes, NumPy is the right capitalization > In NEP-30 [1], I've used "NumPy" everywhere, except for references to > code, repos, etc., where "numpy" is used. I see there's one occurrence > of "Numpy", which was definitely a typo and I had not noticed it until > now, but I will address this on a future update, thanks for pointing > that out. > > [1] https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0030-duck-array-protocol.html > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:09 PM Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> > wrote: > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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
