Yes I am +1 for positional arguments for the __init__ of the estimators. Alex
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 10:25 PM Albert Thomas <albertthoma...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a few comments about this SLEP from a contributor and user of the > library :). > > I think it is important for users to be able to quickly and easily > know/learn which arguments should be keyword arguments when they use > scikit-learn. As a user, I do not want to have to double check each time I > use a function the arguments that should be keyword arguments. Hence the > following sentence of the SLEP "the decision for these methods should be > the same throughout the library in order to keep a consistent interface to > the user" is very important to me. Also how is this going to be > rendered by sphinx in the doc? (before numpydoc supports section for > parameters) > > Thanks, > Albert > > > On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 9:33 PM Gael Varoquaux < > gael.varoqu...@normalesup.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:28:57PM +1000, Joel Nothman wrote: >> > That is, we could consider this resolved after 14 votes in favour. >> >> > So far, if I've interpreted correctly: >> >> > +1 (adrin, nicolas, hanmin, joel, guillaume, jeremie, thomas, vlad, >> roman) = 9. >> >> > I've not understood a clear position from Alex. I'm assuming Andreas is >> in >> > favour given his comments elsewhere, but we've not seen comment here. >> >> I was planning to vote -0 mostly to avoid the vote to seem like bandwagon >> (and because I am not fully sold on the idea), but I actually want this >> to move forward, and it seems that my vote is needed. >> >> Hence, I vote +1. >> >> Hopefully Andreas and Alex make their position clear and we can adopt the >> SLEP. >> >> Thank you to you all. >> >> Gaël >> >> > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 20:06, Roman Yurchak <rth.yurc...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > +1 assuming we are careful about continuing to allow some frequently >> > used positional arguments, even in __init__. >> >> > For instance, >> >> > n_components = 10 >> > pca = PCA(n_components) >> >> > is still more readable, I think, than, >> >> > pca = PCA(n_components=n_components) >> -- >> Gael Varoquaux >> Research Director, INRIA >> http://gael-varoquaux.info >> http://twitter.com/GaelVaroquaux >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
