Hi, On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Sebastian Berg >> >> <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: >> >> > Hey >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, 2013-04-04 at 14:20 -0700, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> <snip> >> >> >> > Maybe we should go through and rename "order" to something more >> >> >> > descriptive >> >> >> > in each case, so we'd have >> >> >> > a.reshape(..., index_order="C") >> >> >> > a.copy(memory_order="F") >> >> >> > etc.? >> >> >> >> >> >> I'd like to propose this instead: >> >> >> >> >> >> a.reshape(..., order="C") >> >> >> a.copy(layout="F") >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I actually like this, makes the point clearer that it has to do with >> >> > memory layout and implies contiguity, plus it is short and from the >> >> > numpy perspective copy, etc. are the ones that add additional info to >> >> > "order" and not reshape (because IMO memory order is something new >> >> > users >> >> > should not worry about at first). A and K orders will still have >> >> > their >> >> > quirks with np.array and copy=True/False, but for many functions they >> >> > are esoteric anyway. >> >> > >> >> > It will be one hell of a deprecation though, but I am +0.5 for adding >> >> > an >> >> > alias for now (maybe someone knows an even better name?), but I think >> >> > that in this case, it probably really is better to wait with actual >> >> > deprecation warnings for a few versions, since it touches a *lot* of >> >> > code. Plus I think at the point of starting deprecation warnings (and >> >> > best earlier) numpy should provide an automatic fixer script... >> >> > >> >> > The only counter point that remains for me is the difficulty of >> >> > deprecation, since I think the new name idea is very clean. And this >> >> > is >> >> > unfortunately even more invasive then the index_order proposal. >> >> >> >> I completely agree that we'd have to be gentle with the change. The >> >> problem we'd want to avoid is people innocently using 'layout' and >> >> finding to their annoyance that the code doesn't work with other >> >> people's numpy. >> >> >> >> How about: >> >> >> >> Step 1: 'order' remains as named keyword, layout added as alias, >> >> comment on the lines of "layout will become the default keyword for >> >> this option in later versions of numpy; please consider updating any >> >> code that does not need to remain backwards compatible'. >> >> >> >> Step 2: default keyword becomes 'layout' with 'order' as alias, >> >> comment like "order is an alias for 'layout' to maintain backwards >> >> compatibility with numpy <= 1.7.1', please update any code that does >> >> not need to maintain backwards compatibility with these numpy >> >> versions' >> >> >> >> Step 3: Add deprecation warning for 'order', "order will be removed as >> >> an alias in future versions of numpy" >> >> >> >> Step 4: (distant future) Remove alias >> >> >> >> ? >> > >> > >> > A very strong -1 from me. Now we're talking about deprecation warnings >> > and a >> > backwards compatibility break after all. I thought we agreed that this >> > was a >> > very bad idea, so why are you proposing it now? >> > >> > Here's how I see it: deprecation of "order" is a no go. Therefore we >> > have >> > two choices here: >> > 1. Simply document the current "order" keyword better and leave it at >> > that. >> > 2. Add a "layout" (or "index_order") keyword, and live with both "order" >> > and >> > "layout" keywords forever. >> > >> > (2) is at least as confusing as (1), more work and poor design. >> > Therefore I >> > propose to go with (1). >> >> You are saying that deprecation of 'order' at any stage in the next 10 >> years of numpy's lifetime is a no go? > > > For something like this? Yes.
You are saying I think that I am wrong in thinking this is an important change that will make numpy easier to explain and use in the long term. You'd probably expect me to disagree, and I do. I think I am right in thinking the change is important - I've tried to make that case in this thread, as well as I can. >> I think that is short-sighted and I think it will damage numpy. > > > It will damage numpy to be conservative and not change a name for a little > bit of clarity for some people that avoids reading the docs maybe a little > more carefully? There's a lot of things that can damage numpy, but this > isn't even close in my book. Too few developers, continuous backwards > compatibility issues, faster alternative libraries surpassing numpy - that's > the kind of thing that causes damage. We're talked about consensus on this list. Of course it can be very hard to achieve. >> Believe me, I have as much investment in backward compatibility as you >> do. All the three libraries that I spend a long time maintaining need >> to test against old numpy versions - but - for heaven's sake - only >> back to numpy 1.2 or numpy 1.3. We don't support Python 2.5 any more, >> and I don't think we need to maintain compatibility with Numeric >> either. > > > Really? This is from 3 months ago: > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.python.numeric.general/52632. It's now > 2013, we are probably dropping numarray compat in 1.8. Not exactly 10 years, > but of the same order. I am happy to make this change over the same time course if you think that is necessary. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
