I am really in favor of the general idea: it is much better to use named arguments for everybody (for readability, and to be less depend on parameter ordering).
However, I would maintain that we need to move slowly with backward compatibility: changing in a backward-incompatible way a library brings much more loss than benefit to our users. So +1 for enforcing the change on all new arguments, but -1 for changing orders in the existing arguments any time soon. I agree that it would be good to push this change in existing models. We should probably announce it strongly well in advance, make sure that all our examples are changed (people copy-paste), wait a lot, and find a moment to squeeze this in. Gaël On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:12:35PM +1100, Joel Nothman wrote: > We could just announce that we will be making this a syntactic constraint from > version X and make the change wholesale then. It would be less formal > backwards > compatibility than we usually hold by, but we already are loose with parameter > ordering when adding new ones. > It would be great if after this change we could then reorder parameters to > make > some sense! > _______________________________________________ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn -- Gael Varoquaux Senior Researcher, INRIA Parietal NeuroSpin/CEA Saclay , Bat 145, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette France Phone: ++ 33-1-69-08-79-68 http://gael-varoquaux.info http://twitter.com/GaelVaroquaux _______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
