Thanks for clarifying! In that case I think endorsing SPEC 7 makes sense. On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 3:08 PM Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2024 at 8:36 AM Nathan via NumPy-Discussion < > numpy-discussion@python.org> wrote: > >> >> Since the legacy RNG interface cannot be deprecated and we encourage >> downstream to use it in tests according to the text of NEP 19, I'm not sure >> about the text in SPEC 7 that talks about deprecating using legacy RNGs. Or >> are you saying that we have now reached the point where we can update NEP >> 19 to encourage moving away from the legacy interface? >> > > We have already always encouraged people to move away from the legacy > interface in their APIs. SPEC 7 recommends a principled way for downstream > projects to implement that move. > > NEP 19 acknowledged that sometimes one might still have a use case for > creating a legacy RandomState object and calling it in their tests to > generate test data (but not otherwise pass that RandomState object to the > code under test), but that's not what SPEC 7 addresses. NEP 19 doesn't > really actively recommend the use of RandomState for this purpose, just > acknowledges that it's a valid use case that numpy will continue to support > even while we push for the exclusive use of Generator inside of > library/program code. NEP 19 doesn't need an update for us to endorse SPEC > 7 (whether it needs one, separately, to clarify its intent is another > question). > > -- > Robert Kern >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
