> Decoupled or not, sparse still needs to be dealt with. What is the plan?
>
My view would be:
- keep current sparse matrices as is (with improvements, like
__numpy_func__ and the various performance improvements that regularly get
done)
- once one of the sparse *array* implementations progresses
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:31 PM, CJ Carey
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Ralf; coupling these changes to sparse is a bad idea.
>>
>> I think that scipy.sparse will be an important consideration during the
>> deprecation process, though, pe
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:31 PM, CJ Carey wrote:
> I agree with Ralf; coupling these changes to sparse is a bad idea.
>
> I think that scipy.sparse will be an important consideration during the
> deprecation process, though, perhaps as an indicator of how painful the
> transition might be for thir
I agree with Ralf; coupling these changes to sparse is a bad idea.
I think that scipy.sparse will be an important consideration during the
deprecation process, though, perhaps as an indicator of how painful the
transition might be for third party code.
I'm +1 for splitting matrices out into a sta
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>> charlesr.har.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It looks to me like we're getting a bit off track here. The sparse
>>> ma
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It looks to me like we're getting a bit off track here. The sparse
>> matrices in scipy are heavily used, and despite rough edges pretty good at
>> what they do. Deprecati
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Todd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2017 20:28, "Ralf Gommers" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Todd wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2017 20:28, "Ralf Gommers" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It seems there are two steps that can be taken now and are needed no
> matter what:
>
> 1. Add numpy documentation describing the preferred way to handle
> matrices, extolling the virtues of @, an
On Jan 6, 2017 20:28, "Ralf Gommers" wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>
>> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate np.matrix in docs.
>> 2
Hi All,
It seems there are two steps that can be taken now and are needed no
matter what:
1. Add numpy documentation describing the preferred way to handle
matrices, extolling the virtues of @, and move np.matrix documentation
to a deprecated section
2. Start on a new `sparse` class that is base
Hi all! I've been lurking on this discussion, and don't have too much to add
except to encourage a fast deprecation: I can't wait for sparse matrices to
have an element-wise multiply operator.
On 7 Jan 2017, 7:52 PM +1100, Ralf Gommers , wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Nathaniel Smi
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM,
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommer
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>>
This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be s
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>>
>>> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate n
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>
>> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate np.matrix in docs.
>> 2. In say 1.5 years: start issuing visible deprec
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>
> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate np.matrix in docs.
> 2. In say 1.5 years: start issuing visible deprecation warnings in numpy
> 3. After 2020: remove matrix from n
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Bryan Van de Ven
wrote:
> There's a good chance that bokeh.charts will be split off into a
> separately distributed package as well. Hopefully being a much smaller,
> pure Python project makes it a more accessible target for anyone interested
> in maintaining it, a
There's a good chance that bokeh.charts will be split off into a separately
distributed package as well. Hopefully being a much smaller, pure Python
project makes it a more accessible target for anyone interested in maintaining
it, and if no one is interested in it anymore, well that fact become
That's not a bad idea. Matplotlib is currently considering something
similar for its mlab module. It has been there since the beginning, but it
is very outdated and very out-of-scope for matplotlib. However, there are
still lots of code out there that depends on it. So, we are looking to
split it o
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
> operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Python 3,
> especially in the classroom, we should consider the real possibility of
> deprecating t
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> How about dropping python 2 support at the s
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
> [...]
> >> How about dropping python 2 support at the same time, then we can all be
> >> in a @ world.
> >>
> >
> > The "@" ope
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
[...]
>> How about dropping python 2 support at the same time, then we can all be
>> in a @ world.
>>
>
> The "@" operator works with matrices already, what causes problems is the
> combination o
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Hi All,
>>
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
>>> oper
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
>>> operator is available and things
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
>> operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Pyth
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
> operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Python 3,
> especially in the classroom, we should consider the real possibility of
> deprecating t
Hi All,
Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@` operator
is available and things seem to be moving towards Python 3, especially in
the classroom, we should consider the real possibility of deprecating the
matrix type and later removing it. No doubt there are old scripts
34 matches
Mail list logo
