On 10/2/07, Christopher Barker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jarrod Millman wrote: > > I am hoping that most of you agree with the general principle of > > bringing NumPy and SciPy into compliance with the standard naming > > conventions.
Excellent plan - and I think it will make the code considerably more readable (and writeable). > > 3. When we release NumPy 1.1, we will convert all (or almost all) > > class names to CapWords. > > What's the backwards-compatible plan? > > - keep the old names as aliases? > - raise deprecation warnings? Both seem good. How about implementing both for the next minor release, with the ability to turn the deprecation warnings off? > What about factory functions that kind of look like they might be > classes -- numpy.array() comes to mind. Though maybe using CamelCase for > the real classes will help folks understand the difference. Sounds right to me - factory function as function, class as class. > What is a "class" in this case -- with new-style classes, there is no > distinction between types and classes, so I guess they are all classes, > which means lots of things like: > > numpy.float32 > > etc. etc. etc. are classes. should they be CamelCase too? I would vote for CamelCase in this case too. Matthew _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
