got it, thanks. I've fixed that typo in a PR I"m working on , too.
-CHB On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 2:41 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > -- 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
