Hello everyone again!
A few clarifications about my proposal of external peer review:
- Yes, all this work is public and announced on the mailing list. However, I
don’t think there’s a single person in this discussion or even this whole
ecosystem that does not have a more immediately-pressing
I noticed that np.bool_.__index__() gives a DeprecationWarning
>>> np.bool_(True).__index__()
__main__:1: DeprecationWarning: In future, it will be an error for
'np.bool_' scalars to be interpreted as an index
1
This is good, because booleans don't actually act like integers in
indexing
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 5:22 AM Ralf Gommers wrote:
> Thanks for raising these concerns Ilhan and Juan, and for answering Peter.
> Let me give my perspective as well.
>
> To start with, this is not specifically about Peter's NEP and PR. NEP 35
> simply follows the pattern set by previous PRs,
Yes, the underlying gory details should be spelled out of course but if it
is also modifying/adding to API then it is best to sound the horn and
invite zombies to take a stab at it. Often people arrive with interesting
use-cases that you wouldn't have thought about.
And I am very familiar with
On Thu, 2020-08-13 at 15:47 +0200, Peter Andreas Entschev wrote:
> > We adapted the NEP template [6] several times last year to try and
> > improve this. And specified in there as well that NEP content set
> > to the mailing list should only contain the sections: Abstract,
> > Motivation and
Ralf,
I know none of it is a criticism of my work or directly of anybody
else's work. I was just making a couple of general points (or
questions really):
1. What is accepted as a reasonably clear NEP? It seems to point that
a NEP _must_ follow the Template
2. Should the NEP Template be followed
Ilhan,
Thanks, that does clarify things.
I think the main point -- and correct me here if I'm still wrong -- is
that we want the NEP to have some very clear example of when/why/how
to use it, preferably as early in the text as possible, maybe just
below the Abstract, in a Motivation and Scope
On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:47 PM Peter Andreas Entschev
wrote:
> > We adapted the NEP template [6] several times last year to try and
> improve this. And specified in there as well that NEP content set to the
> mailing list should only contain the sections: Abstract, Motivation and
> Scope, Usage
> We adapted the NEP template [6] several times last year to try and improve
> this. And specified in there as well that NEP content set to the mailing list
> should only contain the sections: Abstract, Motivation and Scope, Usage and
> Impact, and Backwards compatibility. This to ensure we
To maybe lighten up the discussion a bit and to make my outsider confusion
more tangible, let me start by apologizing for diving head first without
weighing the past luggage :-) I always forget how much effort goes into
these things and for outsiders like me, it's a matter of dipping the finger
Thanks for raising these concerns Ilhan and Juan, and for answering Peter.
Let me give my perspective as well.
To start with, this is not specifically about Peter's NEP and PR. NEP 35
simply follows the pattern set by previous PRs, and given its tight scope
is less difficult to understand than
> I am not sure adding a new keyword to an already confusing function is the
> right thing to do.
Could you clarify what is the confusing function in question?
> This is already a very (I mean extremely very) easy keyword name to confuse
> with ones_like, zeros_like and by its nature any other
12 matches
Mail list logo
