On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
Anne Archibald wrote:
2009/12/9 Dr. Phillip M. Feldman
: When I recently tried to validate a code, the answers were wrong, and it took two full days to track down the cause. I am now forced to reconsider carefully whether Python/NumPy is a suitable platform for serious scientific computing.
While I find the current numpy complex->real conversion annoying, I have to say, this kind of rhetoric does not benefit your cause. It sounds childish and manipulative, and makes even people who agree in principle want to tell you to go ahead and use MATLAB and stop pestering us. We are not here to sell you on numpy; if you hate it, don't use it. We are here because *we* use it, warts and all, and we want to discuss interesting topics related to numpy. That you would have implemented it differently is not very interesting if you are not even willing to understand why it is the way it is and what a change would cost, let alone propose a workable way to improve.
At this point I want to remind us about Charles Harris' very workable proposal: Raise a warning. That should both keep backward compatability and prevent people from wasting days. (Hopefully, we can avoid wasting days discussing this issue too :-) ).
+1 Completely agree. And to be clear, I realize the need not to break anything relying on this behavior. I just don't want people passing this off as a non-issue/'not a big deal'. Ryan -- Ryan May Graduate Research Assistant School of Meteorology University of Oklahoma