On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:17 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Charles R Harris < >> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> This post is to bring the discussion of PR >>> #2965<https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/2965>to the attention of the >>> list. There are at least three issues in play here. >>> >>> 1) The PR adds modes 'big' and 'thin' to the current modes 'full', 'r', >>> 'economic' for qr factorization. The problem is that the current 'full' is >>> actually 'thin' and 'big' should be 'full'. The solution here was to raise >>> a FutureWarning on use of 'full', alias it to 'thin' for the time being, >>> and at some distant time change 'full' to alias 'big'. >>> >> > This is asking for problems, to gain some naming consistency. I can't tell > how confusing 'full' is now, but deprecating and removing would be better > than changing what it returns. > That's what the current state of the PR is, both 'full' and 'economic' are deprecated. > > >> >>> 2) The 'economic' mode serves little purpose. I propose to deprecate it >>> and add a 'qrf' mode instead, corresponding to scipy's 'raw' mode. We can't >>> use 'raw' itself as traditionally the mode may be specified using the first >>> letter only and that leads to a conflict with 'r'. >>> >> > That's not a very good reason to not use "raw", since "raw" is a new > option and you therefore don't have to apply the rule that you can give > only the first letter to it. > Also the current state. > > >> >>> 3) As suggested in 2, the use of single letter abbreviations can >>> constrain the options in choosing mode names and they are not as >>> informative as the full name. A possibility here is to deprecate the use of >>> the abbreviations in favor of the full names. >>> >> > I'm not feeling very strongly about this, but we have to be careful about > deprecations. Possible future naming constraints on new modes is not a good > reason to deprecate. This one-letter option isn't even mentioned in the > docs it looks like. So why not leave that as is and ensure it keeps working > (add a unit test if needed)? > Currently qr requires full names for the new modes but not for the deprecated 'full' and 'economic'. That can be changed if we use 'thin' instead of 'reduced'. > >> >>> A longer term problem is the divergence between the numpy and scipy >>> versions of qr. The divergence is enough that I don't see any easy way to >>> come to a common interface, but that is something that would be desirable >>> if possible. >>> >> > This would be a problem imho. But I don't see why you can't add "raw" to > numpy's qr. And if you add "big" and "thin" in numpy, you can add those > modes in scipy too. > Currently I've used bfroehle's suggestions, although I'm tempted by 'thin' instead of 'reduced' <snip> Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion