On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:14:30AM -0500, Andreas Mueller wrote:
> Are there any plans for a next sprint (in Paris/Europe?)?
We're happy to host one in Paris, ideally in second half of February.
Gaël
> OpenML would like to join us next time and I think that would be cool.
> But they (and I ;)
Not sure if it counts and/or it'll be as fruitful as one of yours, but
we're trying to gauge/raise the interest in a meetup this coming Tuesday in
Berlin, and if there's interest, we'll try to organize one in Jan/Feb.
Cheers,
Adrin.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 15:44 Gael Varoquaux
wrote:
> On Thu,
On 11/15/18 9:41 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:14:30AM -0500, Andreas Mueller wrote:
Are there any plans for a next sprint (in Paris/Europe?)?
We're happy to host one in Paris, ideally in second half of February.
I have to teach, so I'd prefer summer. I'm teaching
On 11/15/18 6:35 AM, Joel Nothman wrote:
I think there are cases where the first few arguments would be better
to maintain as positional, but users would very rarely use more than
two, and we have long assumed keyword arguments in most cases, and
never received complaints when we have
Hey folks.
Are there any plans for a next sprint (in Paris/Europe?)?
OpenML would like to join us next time and I think that would be cool.
But they (and I ;) need some advance planning.
I also have some funding that I could use for this as well.
Cheers,
Andy
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 08:59:08AM -0500, Andreas Mueller wrote:
> I could try to see if people use positional arguments and where. No promise on
> timeline though.
If someone, you or someone else, does that, it would be very useful.
> I think there is little harm in doing it for new parameters
Also want to say that I really welcome this decision/change. Personally, as far
as I am aware, I've trying been using keyword arguments consistently for years,
except for cases where it is really obvious, like .fit(X_train, y_train), and I
believe that it really helped me regarding writing less
As an end-user, I would strongly support the idea of future enforcement of
keyword arguments for new parameters.
In my group, we hold a standard that we develop APIs where _all_ arguments
must be given by keyword (slightly pedantic style, but has shown to have
benefits).
Initialization/call-time
Ha! Well, it looks like I won't be teaching the NLP unit at my uni next
year (would usually occupy me March-July), so there is no fundamental
problem with disappearing in February, if I can get babysitters, and my
boss, on board. (Although I am trying to plan another overseas trip for
April, but
I am really in favor of the general idea: it is much better to use named
arguments for everybody (for readability, and to be less depend on
parameter ordering).
However, I would maintain that we need to move slowly with backward
compatibility: changing in a backward-incompatible way a library
I think there are cases where the first few arguments would be better to
maintain as positional, but users would very rarely use more than two, and
we have long assumed keyword arguments in most cases, and never received
complaints when we have inserted not at the end or deprecated in the middle.
11 matches
Mail list logo
