Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

It's a yes for me. On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 3:20 AM Joel Nothman wrote: > As per our Governance > document, changes to API principles are to be established through an > Enhancement Proposal (SLEP) from which any core developer can call for a > vote

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

I'm strongly supportive of moving to keyword only arguments. Andrew <~~~> J. Andrew Howe, PhD LinkedIn Profile ResearchGate Profile Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID)

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

hi, Adrin do you suggest this for everything or maybe just for __init__ params of estimators and stuff that can come after X, y in fit eg sample_weights? would: clf.fit(X, y) still be allowed? Alex ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.or

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

Hi, I'm (mostly) the messenger, don't shoot me :P It may help to summarize the SLEP: 1. This can be applied to all methods, not just __init__. 2. The SLEP doesn't say we have to apply it everywhere. It's mostly that it lets us do that. 3. It doesn't make ALL inputs a keywords only argument. The c

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

Since there is no explicit proposal in the SLEP it's not very clear what we need to vote for / against? But overall I'm  + 1 on forcing kwargs for all __init__ methods. Nicolas On 9/11/19 9:38 AM, Adrin wrote: Hi, I'm (mostly) the messenger, don't shoot me :P It may help to summarize the

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

> But overall I'm + 1 on forcing kwargs for all __init__ methods. yes I think it will help for __init__ methods Alex PS : I don't shoot people (usually...) ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

I'll vote +1, though there're still lots of things to decide. Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Alexandre Gramfort To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments Date: 2019-09-12 03:43 > But overall I'm + 1 on forcing kwargs for al

Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

These there details of specific API changes to be decided: The question being put, as per the SLEP, is: do we want to utilise Python 3's force-keyword-argument syntax and to change existing APIs which support arguments positionally to use this syntax, via a deprecation period?

[scikit-learn] MultiLabelBinarizer gives individual characters instead of the classes

Hi. I am working on a Multi-label text classification problem. In order to encode the labels, I am using MultiLabelBinarizer. The labels of the dataset look like - [image: image] When I am usin

Re: [scikit-learn] MultiLabelBinarizer gives individual characters instead of the classes

I think this caveat has been added in the dev doc (not yet in the stable doc). You may want to read: https://scikit-learn.org/dev/modules/generated/sklearn.preprocessing.MultiLabelBinarizer.html and in particular the part that starts with "A common mistake is to pass in a list". Cheers, Loïc > Hi