I don't know what is the policy about a sklearn 1.0 w.r.t api changes.
If it's meant to be a special release with possible api changes without
deprecation cycles, I think this change is a good candidate for 1.0
Otherwise I'm +1 and agree with Guillaume, people will get used to it by
using it.
Jérémie
On 12/09/2019 10:06, Guillaume Lemaître wrote:
To the question: do we want to utilise Python 3's
force-keyword-argument syntax
and to change existing APIs which support arguments positionally to
use this
syntax, via a deprecation period?
I am +1.
IMO, even if the syntax might be unknown, it will remain unknown until
projects
from the ecosystem are not using it.
To the question: which methods should be impacted?
I think we should be as gentle as possible at first. I am a little
concerned about
breaking some codes which were working fine before.
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 04:43, Joel Nothman <joel.noth...@gmail.com
<mailto:joel.noth...@gmail.com>> wrote:
These there details of specific API changes to be decided:
The question being put, as per the SLEP, is:
do we want to utilise Python 3's force-keyword-argument syntax
and to change existing APIs which support arguments positionally
to use this syntax, via a deprecation period?
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
--
Guillaume Lemaitre
INRIA Saclay - Parietal team
Center for Data Science Paris-Saclay
https://glemaitre.github.io/
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
_______________________________________________
scikit-learn mailing list
scikit-learn@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
