On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:12 PM Aaron Meurer <asmeu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 1:47 AM Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > you might want to discuss this with us at the array API standard > > > https://github.com/data-apis/array-api (which is currently in RFC > > > stage). The spec uses bool as the name for the boolean dtype. > > > > I don't fully understand this argument - `np.bool` is already not the > boolean dtype. Either: > > The spec does deviate from what NumPy currently does in some places. > If we wanted to just copy NumPy exactly, there wouldn't be a need for > a specification. I wouldn't take that as a premise. Specifying a subset of the vast existing NumPy API would be a quite valuable specification in its own right. I find the motivation for deviation laid out in the Purpose and Scope <https://data-apis.github.io/array-api/latest/purpose_and_scope.html#introduction> section to be reasonably convincing that deviation might be needed *somewhere*. The question then is, is *this* deviation supporting that stated motivation, or is it taking the opportunity of a redesign to rationalize the names more to our current tastes? Given the mode of adopting the standard (a separate subpackage), that's a reasonable choice to make, but let's be clear about the motivation. I submit that keeping the name `bool_` does not make it any harder for other array APIs to adopt the standard. It's just that few people would design a new API with that name if they were designing a greenfield API. -- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
