On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:33 AM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Hoyer <shoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have now drafted these revisions to the NEP to clarify its stance around
> backwards compatibility, and the type of the "types" argument:
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11943

Okay, so this is a pretty substantial change! Before, the NEP's stance
was "we might change anything, at any time, without any warning",
which of course makes it easier to accept the NEP (since we can always
back out), but was also so different from our normal rules that it
seemed important to make sure people weren't using it without
realizing. Now it actually makes a commitment: to not regress on what
functions can be overloaded (though the details might change), and
commits to an abbreviated-but-nonzero deprecation process when we
change things. I get the impression that this is closer to what the
authors were intending in the first place, so that's good! I would
probably have kept the noisy warning and zero commitments for one
release anyway, because IMO it's not a big deal and it rarely hurts to
hedge bets and gather data. But on reflection, I think I am OK with
this level of commitment if that's what y'all want to go for. (After
all, it's not really any stronger than NEP 22's high-level plan.) So,
+0.

Nathaniel -- thanks for your critical reviews here, and your open-mindedness!

I've gone ahead and merged the PR to mark the NEP as accepted. Let's get started on the fun part of implementation!

Cheers,
Stephan