Re: [Numpy-discussion] Type annotations for NumPy

2017-12-05 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > This discussion has died down, but I don't want to lose momentum . > > It sounds like there is at least strong interest from a subset of our > community in type annotations. Are there any objections to the first part of >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Type annotations for NumPy

2017-12-05 Thread Stephan Hoyer
This discussion has died down, but I don't want to lose momentum . It sounds like there is at least strong interest from a subset of our community in type annotations. Are there any objections to the first part of my plan, to start developing type stubs for NumPy in separate repository? We'll

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Ralf Gommers
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman > > wrote: > >> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Type annotations for NumPy

2017-12-05 Thread Fernando Perez
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 2:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Stephan Hoyer wrote: > > This discussion has died down, but I don't want to lose momentum . > > > > It sounds like there is at least strong interest from a subset of our >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Robert Kern
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:49 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for > end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a > reference, but if we're asking end-users to look at them on a regular > basis then I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Ralf Gommers
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman wrote: > Hi all, > > Since we expect to be writing some NEPs in the near future, Nathaniel > and I were looking at how they're organized, and realized that the > process is a bit underspecified and it's a hard to tell the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman > wrote: >> Assuming that sounds good, my tentative next steps are: >> >> - I'll draft a purpose and process NEP based on PEP 1 and a few other >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Nelle Varoquaux
On 5 December 2017 at 17:32, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, Ralf Gommers >> wrote: >> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Jarrod Millman

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Jarrod Millman
I was planning on looking at/working on the main doc generating system and the main webpage (for numpy and scipy) soon (over the winter break), but I didn't want to get too many things in the discussion right now. My immediate interest is getting agreement on the first two items: - A purpose and

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread josef . pktd
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:44 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers > wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NEP process update

2017-12-05 Thread Nathaniel Smith
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> - NEPs are really part of the development process, not an output for >> end-users -- they're certainly useful to have available as a >>