Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

[Charles R Harris]

On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> On Nov 8, 2015 6:00 PM, "Eric Firing"  wrote:
> >
> > I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg
> is the end of the every signature, or it is the first kwarg in every
> signature.  It's a very special and unusual kwarg, so it should have a
> standard location.
>
> For all ufuncs, out arguments come first immediately after in arguments,
> so +1 for doing that for consistency.
>

Agree that that is what to shoot for. The particular problem with `ma.dot`
is that it already has the `strict` argument where the new `out` argument
should go. I propose the following steps.


   1. For backward compatibility, start by adding new arguments to the end
   2. Later raise FutureWarning on positional arguments that are out of
   place
   3. Then make all but early arguments keyword only

Once we have keyword only for a while, it would be possible to add some
arguments back as positional arguments, but it might be best to keep them
as keyword only as suggested above.

For the current PR, this means that the dot method will have positional
arguments in a different order than ma.dot. Alternatively, out could be
made keyword only in both, although that would require fixing up some
tests. There is really no magical solution that avoids all difficulties
that I can see.

Unless a consensus develops otherwise, I will pursue step 1. and go for a
1.10.2rc tomorrow.

Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Charles R Harris
 wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2015 at 8:43 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2015 6:00 PM, "Eric Firing"  wrote:
>> >
>> > I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg
>> > is the end of the every signature, or it is the first kwarg in every
>> > signature.  It's a very special and unusual kwarg, so it should have a
>> > standard location.
>>
>> For all ufuncs, out arguments come first immediately after in arguments,
>> so +1 for doing that for consistency.
>
>
> Agree that that is what to shoot for. The particular problem with `ma.dot`
> is that it already has the `strict` argument where the new `out` argument
> should go. I propose the following steps.
>
> 1. For backward compatibility, start by adding new arguments to the end
> 2. Later raise FutureWarning on positional arguments that are out of place
> 3. Then make all but early arguments keyword only
>
> Once we have keyword only for a while, it would be possible to add some
> arguments back as positional arguments, but it might be best to keep them as
> keyword only as suggested above.
>
> For the current PR, this means that the dot method will have positional
> arguments in a different order than ma.dot. Alternatively, out could be made
> keyword only in both, although that would require fixing up some tests.
> There is really no magical solution that avoids all difficulties that I can
> see.
>
> Unless a consensus develops otherwise, I will pursue step 1. and go for a
> 1.10.2rc tomorrow.

If we're adding it in a funny place to ma.dot now (the end of the
arglist) with the plan of changing it later, then why not make it
kwarg-only in ma.dot now to start with?

If this turns out to be annoying somehow then go ahead with whatever
as far I'm concerned -- I don't want to hold up 1.10.2 by trying to
micro-optimize the transition path for an obscure corner of np.ma :-).

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

[Eric Firing]

On 2015/11/08 3:46 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:

Hi All,

I'd like some feedback for the position of the `strict` and `out`
arguments for masked arrays. See gh-6653
 for the PR in question.

Current status without #6652

 1. ma.dot(a, b, strict=False) -- established
 2. a.dot(b, out=None) -- new in 1.10


Note that 1. requires adding `out` to the end for backward
compatibility. OTOH, 2. is new(ish). We can either keep it compatible
with ndarray.dot and add `strict` to the end and have it incompatible
with 1., or, slightly changing it in 1.10.2, make it compatible with
with 1. but incompatible with ndarray. We will face the same sort of
problem with adding newer ndarray arguments other existing ma functions
that have their own specialized arguments, so having a policy up front
will be helpful. My own inclination here is to keep 1. and 2.
compatible, and then perhaps at some point following a future warning,
make both `strict` and `out` keyword arguments only. Another possiblitly
is to make that transition immediate for the method.


I'm not sure about the best sequence, but I like the strategy of moving 
to keyword-only arguments.  It is good for readability, and for flexibility.


I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg 
is the end of the every signature, or it is the first kwarg in every 
signature.  It's a very special and unusual kwarg, so it should have a 
standard location.


Eric



Thoughts?

Chuck


___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Feedback on new argument positions for ma.dot and MaskedArray.dot

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Nov 8, 2015 6:00 PM, "Eric Firing"  wrote:
>
> I also prefer that there be a single convention: either the "out" kwarg
is the end of the every signature, or it is the first kwarg in every
signature.  It's a very special and unusual kwarg, so it should have a
standard location.

For all ufuncs, out arguments come first immediately after in arguments, so
+1 for doing that for consistency.

-n
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion