On Mon, 2020-08-10 at 17:35 +0200, Hameer Abbasi wrote: > Hi, > > We should have a higher-bandwidth meeting/communication for all > stakeholders, and particularly some library authors, to see what > would be good for them. > > We should definitely have language in the NEP that says it won’t be > in a release unless the NEP is accepted.
In that case, I think the important part is to have language right now in the implementation, although that can refer to the NEP itself of course. You can't expect everyone who may be tempted to use it to actually read the NEP draft, at least not without pointing it out. I will say that I think it is not very high risk, because I think annoying or not, the argument could be deprecated again with a transition short phase. Admittedly, that argument only works if we have a replacement solution. Cheers, Sebastian > > Best regards, > Hameer Abbasi > > -- > Sent from Canary (https://canarymail.io) > > > On Monday, Aug 10, 2020 at 5:31 PM, Sebastian Berg < > > sebast...@sipsolutions.net (mailto:sebast...@sipsolutions.net)> > > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > as a heads up that Peter Entschev has a PR open to add `like=` to > > most array creation functions, my current plan is to merge it soon > > as a preliminary API and bring it up again before the actual > > release (in a few months). This allows overriding for array-likes, > > e.g. it will allow: > > > > > > arr = np.asarray([3], like=dask_array) > > type(arr) is dask.array.Array > > > > This was proposed in NEP 35: > > > > https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0035-array-creation-dispatch-with-array-function.html > > > > Although that has not been accepted as of now, the PR is: > > > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/16935 > > > > > > This was discussed in a smaller group, and is an attempt to see how > > we > > can make the array-function protocol viable to allow packages such > > as > > sklearn to work with non-NumPy arrays. > > > > As of now, this would be experimental and can revisit it before the > > actual NumPy release. We should probably discuss accepting NEP 35 > > more. At this time, I hope that we can put in the functionality to > > facilitate this discussion, rather the other way around. > > > > If anyone feels nervous about this step, I would be happy to > > document > > that we will not include it in the next release unless the NEP is > > accepted first, or at least hide it behind an environment variable. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Sebastian > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
