On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Travis Oliphant >> <oliph...@enthought.com>wrote: >> >>> This discussion is interesting and useful for NumPy 2.0, but the subtle >>> change is not acceptable for NumPy 1.6. >>> >>> The rules were consistent, even if seen as unintuitive by some. >>> >>> The fact that two libraries we know of already had tests break should be >>> a big red warning flag. There are a lot of other libraries that may have >>> tests break. >>> >>> Having to fix tests would be expected for NumPy 2.0, but not 1.6. >>> >>> I am a big -10 for rolling out a change like this in NumPy 1.6 >>> >> >> I've pushed a patch to change this, with tests. >> >> > I'm impressed by how little you needed to change. > > <snip> > > Chuck > > Should tests be added to detect future changes? Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
