On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Joe Harrington <j...@physics.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Chuck Harris writes (on numpy-discussion): > > > Since there has been talk of deprecating the numarray and numeric > > compatibility parts of numpy for the upcoming 2.0 release I thought maybe > we > > could consider a few other changes. First, numpy imports a ton of stuff > by > > default and this is maintained for backward compatibility. Would this be > a > > reasonable time to change that and require explicit imports for things > like > > fft? Second, Poly1D has problems that aren't likely to get fixed, I would > > like to both deprecate the old polynomial support and make it not be > > imported by default. > > > > Thoughts? > > I'd like to suggest that 2.0 include a fully-reviewed set of > docstrings (except for the "unimportant" ones). > > Really, 1.0 should not have been released without documentation, but > it was released prematurely anyway, and we've spent much of the 1.x > release series fixing inconsistencies and other problems, as well as > writing the draft docs now included in the releases. I look at 2.0 > as our "real" 1.0, as do many others. > > I am posting a call for a (possibly paid) Django programmer who can > add a second review capability to the doc wiki. That call is on > scipy-dev, where discussion of the wiki and general documentation > topics takes place. If you are interested, please respond there, not > here. Discussion of whether to include reviewed docs in numpy 2.0 > belongs here on numpy-discussion, of course. > > I think the main issue with regard to docs will be time frame. What > is the time frame for a 2.0 release? > > 2-3 weeks from now. > Aside from docs and the things Chuck mentioned, I think a general > design review would be a good idea, to root out things like any more > lurking inconsistencies or disorganizations, such as the "median" > problem. I guess that's what Chuck started, but should we formalize > it by parceling out chunks of the package to 2-3 reviewers each for > comment? The idea would be to root out problems, incompleteness, and > disorganization, *not* to engage in a big rewrite that would massively > break the API for everyone. > > Ideally, after 2.0 the changes would be improvements rather than > API-breaking fixes. > > We aren't going to have time to review and redesign numpy for 2.0. That's what 3.0 is for and that is probably a couple of years in the future. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
