NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy
Github issue 2880 ("Get financial functions out of main namespace", https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880) has been open since 2013. In a recent community meeting, it was suggested that we create a NEP to propose the removal of the financial functions from NumPy. I have submitted "NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy" in a pull request at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14399. A copy of the latest version of the NEP is below. According to the NEP process document, "Once the PR is in place, the NEP should be announced on the mailing list for discussion (comments on the PR itself should be restricted to minor editorial and technical fixes)." This email is the announcement for NEP 32. The NEP includes a brief summary of the history of the financial functions, and has links to several relevant mailing list threads, dating back to when the functions were added to NumPy in 2008. I recommend reviewing those threads before commenting here. Warren ----- ================================================== NEP 32 — Remove the financial functions from NumPy ================================================== :Author: Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> :Status: Draft :Type: Standards Track :Created: 2019-08-30 Abstract -------- We propose deprecating and ultimately removing the financial functions [1]_ from NumPy. The functions will be moved to an independent repository, and provided to the community as a separate package with the name ``numpy_financial``. Motivation and scope -------------------- The NumPy financial functions [1]_ are the 10 functions ``fv``, ``ipmt``, ``irr``, ``mirr``, ``nper``, ``npv``, ``pmt``, ``ppmt``, ``pv`` and ``rate``. The functions provide elementary financial calculations such as future value, net present value, etc. These functions were added to NumPy in 2008 [2]_. In May, 2009, a request by Joe Harrington to add a function called ``xirr`` to the financial functions triggered a long thread about these functions [3]_. One important point that came up in that thread is that a "real" financial library must be able to handle real dates. The NumPy financial functions do not work with actual dates or calendars. The preference for a more capable library independent of NumPy was expressed several times in that thread. In June, 2009, D. L. Goldsmith expressed concerns about the correctness of the implementations of some of the financial functions [4]_. It was suggested then to move the financial functions out of NumPy to an independent package. In a GitHub issue in 2013 [5]_, Nathaniel Smith suggested moving the financial functions from the top-level namespace to ``numpy.financial``. He also suggested giving the functions better names. Responses at that time included the suggestion to deprecate them and move them from NumPy to a separate package. This issue is still open. Later in 2013 [6]_, it was suggested on the mailing list that these functions be removed from NumPy. The arguments for the removal of these functions from NumPy: * They are too specialized for NumPy. * They are not actually useful for "real world" financial calculations, because they do not handle real dates and calendars. * The definition of "correctness" for some of these functions seems to be a matter of convention, and the current NumPy developers do not have the background to judge their correctness. * There has been little interest among past and present NumPy developers in maintaining these functions. The main arguments for keeping the functions in NumPy are: * Removing these functions will be disruptive for some users. Current users will have to add the new ``numpy_financial`` package to their dependencies, and then modify their code to use the new package. * The functions provided, while not "industrial strength", are apparently similar to functions provided by spreadsheets and some calculators. Having them available in NumPy makes it easier for some developers to migrate their software to Python and NumPy. It is clear from comments in the mailing list discussions and in the GitHub issues that many current NumPy developers believe the benefits of removing the functions outweigh the costs. For example, from [5]_:: The financial functions should probably be part of a separate package -- Charles Harris If there's a better package we can point people to we could just deprecate them and then remove them entirely... I'd be fine with that too... -- Nathaniel Smith +1 to deprecate them. If no other package exists, it can be created if someone feels the need for that. -- Ralf Gommers I feel pretty strongly that we should deprecate these. If nobody on numpy’s core team is interested in maintaining them, then it is purely a drag on development for NumPy. -- Stephan Hoyer And from the 2013 mailing list discussion, about removing the functions from NumPy:: I am +1 as well, I don't think they should have been included in the first place. -- David Cournapeau But not everyone was in favor of removal:: The fin routines are tiny and don't require much maintenance once written. If we made an effort (putting up pages with examples of common financial calculations and collecting those under a topical web page, then linking to that page from various places and talking it up), I would think they could attract users looking for a free way to play with financial scenarios. [...] So, I would say we keep them. If ours are not the best, we should bring them up to snuff. -- Joe Harrington For an idea of the maintenance burden of the financial functions, one can look for all the GitHub issues [7]_ and pull requests [8]_ that have the tag ``component: numpy.lib.financial``. One method for measuring the effect of removing these functions is to find all the packages on GitHub that use them. Such a search can be performed with the ``python-api-inspect`` service [9]_. A search for all uses of the NumPy financial functions finds just eight repositories. (See the comments in [5]_ for the actual SQL query.) Implementation -------------- * Create a new Python package, ``numpy_financial``, to be maintained in the top-level NumPy github organization. This repository will contain the definitions and unit tests for the financial functions. The package will be added to PyPI so it can be installed with ``pip``. * Deprecate the financial functions in the ``numpy`` namespace, beginning in NumPy version 1.18. Remove the financial functions from NumPy version 1.20. Backward compatibility ---------------------- The removal of these functions breaks backward compatibility, as explained earlier. The effects are mitigated by providing the ``numpy_financial`` library. Alternatives ------------ The following alternatives were mentioned in [5]_: * *Maintain the functions as they are (i.e. do nothing).* A review of the history makes clear that this is not the preference of many NumPy developers. A recurring comment is that the functions simply do not belong in NumPy. When that sentiment is combined with the history of bug reports and the ongoing questions about the correctness of the functions, the conclusion is that the cleanest solution is deprecation and removal. * *Move the functions from the ``numpy`` namespace to ``numpy.financial``.* This was the initial suggestion in [5]_. Such a change does not address the maintenance issues, and doesn't change the misfit that many developers see between these functions and NumPy. It causes disruption for the current users of these functions without addressing what many developers see as the fundamental problem. Discussion ---------- Links to past mailing list discussions, and to relevant GitHub issues and pull requests, have already been given. References and footnotes ------------------------ .. [1] Financial functions, https://numpy.org/doc/1.17/reference/routines.financial.html .. [2] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Simple financial functions for NumPy", https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-April/032353.html .. [3] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "add xirr to numpy financial functions?", https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-May/042645.html .. [4] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Definitions of pv, fv, nper, pmt, and rate", https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-June/043188.html .. [5] Get financial functions out of main namespace, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880 .. [6] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Deprecation of financial routines", https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-August/067409.html .. [7] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` issues, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3A%22component%3A+numpy.lib.financial%22+ .. [8] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` pull request, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+label%3A%22component%3A+numpy.lib.financial%22+ .. [9] Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect, https://github.com/Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect/ Copyright --------- This document has been placed in the public domain.
On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 08:56 -0400, Warren Weckesser wrote:
Github issue 2880 ("Get financial functions out of main namespace",
Very briefly, I am absolutely in favor of this. Keeping the functions in numpy seems more of a liability than help anyone. And this push is more likely to help users by spurring development on a good replacement, than a practically unmaintained corner of NumPy that may seem like it solves a problem, but probably does so very poorly. Moving them into a separate pip installable package seems like the best way forward until a better replacement, to which we can point users, comes up. - Sebastian
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880) has been open since 2013. In a recent community meeting, it was suggested that we create a NEP to propose the removal of the financial functions from NumPy. I have submitted "NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy" in a pull request at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14399. A copy of the latest version of the NEP is below.
According to the NEP process document, "Once the PR is in place, the NEP should be announced on the mailing list for discussion (comments on the PR itself should be restricted to minor editorial and technical fixes)." This email is the announcement for NEP 32.
The NEP includes a brief summary of the history of the financial functions, and has links to several relevant mailing list threads, dating back to when the functions were added to NumPy in 2008. I recommend reviewing those threads before commenting here.
Warren
-----
================================================== NEP 32 — Remove the financial functions from NumPy ==================================================
:Author: Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> :Status: Draft :Type: Standards Track :Created: 2019-08-30
Abstract --------
We propose deprecating and ultimately removing the financial functions [1]_ from NumPy. The functions will be moved to an independent repository, and provided to the community as a separate package with the name ``numpy_financial``.
Motivation and scope --------------------
The NumPy financial functions [1]_ are the 10 functions ``fv``, ``ipmt``, ``irr``, ``mirr``, ``nper``, ``npv``, ``pmt``, ``ppmt``, ``pv`` and ``rate``. The functions provide elementary financial calculations such as future value, net present value, etc. These functions were added to NumPy in 2008 [2]_.
In May, 2009, a request by Joe Harrington to add a function called ``xirr`` to the financial functions triggered a long thread about these functions [3]_. One important point that came up in that thread is that a "real" financial library must be able to handle real dates. The NumPy financial functions do not work with actual dates or calendars. The preference for a more capable library independent of NumPy was expressed several times in that thread.
In June, 2009, D. L. Goldsmith expressed concerns about the correctness of the implementations of some of the financial functions [4]_. It was suggested then to move the financial functions out of NumPy to an independent package.
In a GitHub issue in 2013 [5]_, Nathaniel Smith suggested moving the financial functions from the top-level namespace to ``numpy.financial``. He also suggested giving the functions better names. Responses at that time included the suggestion to deprecate them and move them from NumPy to a separate package. This issue is still open.
Later in 2013 [6]_, it was suggested on the mailing list that these functions be removed from NumPy.
The arguments for the removal of these functions from NumPy:
* They are too specialized for NumPy. * They are not actually useful for "real world" financial calculations, because they do not handle real dates and calendars. * The definition of "correctness" for some of these functions seems to be a matter of convention, and the current NumPy developers do not have the background to judge their correctness. * There has been little interest among past and present NumPy developers in maintaining these functions.
The main arguments for keeping the functions in NumPy are:
* Removing these functions will be disruptive for some users. Current users will have to add the new ``numpy_financial`` package to their dependencies, and then modify their code to use the new package. * The functions provided, while not "industrial strength", are apparently similar to functions provided by spreadsheets and some calculators. Having them available in NumPy makes it easier for some developers to migrate their software to Python and NumPy.
It is clear from comments in the mailing list discussions and in the GitHub issues that many current NumPy developers believe the benefits of removing the functions outweigh the costs. For example, from [5]_::
The financial functions should probably be part of a separate package -- Charles Harris
If there's a better package we can point people to we could just deprecate them and then remove them entirely... I'd be fine with that too... -- Nathaniel Smith
+1 to deprecate them. If no other package exists, it can be created if someone feels the need for that. -- Ralf Gommers
I feel pretty strongly that we should deprecate these. If nobody on numpy’s core team is interested in maintaining them, then it is purely a drag on development for NumPy. -- Stephan Hoyer
And from the 2013 mailing list discussion, about removing the functions from NumPy::
I am +1 as well, I don't think they should have been included in the first place. -- David Cournapeau
But not everyone was in favor of removal::
The fin routines are tiny and don't require much maintenance once written. If we made an effort (putting up pages with examples of common financial calculations and collecting those under a topical web page, then linking to that page from various places and talking it up), I would think they could attract users looking for a free way to play with financial scenarios. [...] So, I would say we keep them. If ours are not the best, we should bring them up to snuff. -- Joe Harrington
For an idea of the maintenance burden of the financial functions, one can look for all the GitHub issues [7]_ and pull requests [8]_ that have the tag ``component: numpy.lib.financial``.
One method for measuring the effect of removing these functions is to find all the packages on GitHub that use them. Such a search can be performed with the ``python-api-inspect`` service [9]_. A search for all uses of the NumPy financial functions finds just eight repositories. (See the comments in [5]_ for the actual SQL query.)
Implementation --------------
* Create a new Python package, ``numpy_financial``, to be maintained in the top-level NumPy github organization. This repository will contain the definitions and unit tests for the financial functions. The package will be added to PyPI so it can be installed with ``pip``. * Deprecate the financial functions in the ``numpy`` namespace, beginning in NumPy version 1.18. Remove the financial functions from NumPy version 1.20.
Backward compatibility ----------------------
The removal of these functions breaks backward compatibility, as explained earlier. The effects are mitigated by providing the ``numpy_financial`` library.
Alternatives ------------
The following alternatives were mentioned in [5]_:
* *Maintain the functions as they are (i.e. do nothing).* A review of the history makes clear that this is not the preference of many NumPy developers. A recurring comment is that the functions simply do not belong in NumPy. When that sentiment is combined with the history of bug reports and the ongoing questions about the correctness of the functions, the conclusion is that the cleanest solution is deprecation and removal. * *Move the functions from the ``numpy`` namespace to ``numpy.financial``.* This was the initial suggestion in [5]_. Such a change does not address the maintenance issues, and doesn't change the misfit that many developers see between these functions and NumPy. It causes disruption for the current users of these functions without addressing what many developers see as the fundamental problem.
Discussion ----------
Links to past mailing list discussions, and to relevant GitHub issues and pull requests, have already been given.
References and footnotes ------------------------
.. [1] Financial functions, https://numpy.org/doc/1.17/reference/routines.financial.html
.. [2] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Simple financial functions for NumPy",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-April/032353.html
.. [3] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "add xirr to numpy financial functions?",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-May/042645.html
.. [4] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Definitions of pv, fv, nper, pmt, and rate",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-June/043188.html
.. [5] Get financial functions out of main namespace, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880
.. [6] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Deprecation of financial routines",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-August/067409.html
.. [7] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` issues,
.. [8] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` pull request,
.. [9] Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect, https://github.com/Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect/
Copyright ---------
This document has been placed in the public domain.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
+1 on removing them from NumPy. I think there are plenty of alternatives already so many that we might even consider deprecating them just like SciPy misc module by pointing to alternatives. On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:38 PM Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 08:56 -0400, Warren Weckesser wrote:
Github issue 2880 ("Get financial functions out of main namespace",
Very briefly, I am absolutely in favor of this.
Keeping the functions in numpy seems more of a liability than help anyone. And this push is more likely to help users by spurring development on a good replacement, than a practically unmaintained corner of NumPy that may seem like it solves a problem, but probably does so very poorly.
Moving them into a separate pip installable package seems like the best way forward until a better replacement, to which we can point users, comes up.
- Sebastian
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880) has been open since 2013. In a recent community meeting, it was suggested that we create a NEP to propose the removal of the financial functions from NumPy. I have submitted "NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy" in a pull request at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14399. A copy of the latest version of the NEP is below.
According to the NEP process document, "Once the PR is in place, the NEP should be announced on the mailing list for discussion (comments on the PR itself should be restricted to minor editorial and technical fixes)." This email is the announcement for NEP 32.
The NEP includes a brief summary of the history of the financial functions, and has links to several relevant mailing list threads, dating back to when the functions were added to NumPy in 2008. I recommend reviewing those threads before commenting here.
Warren
-----
================================================== NEP 32 — Remove the financial functions from NumPy ==================================================
:Author: Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> :Status: Draft :Type: Standards Track :Created: 2019-08-30
Abstract --------
We propose deprecating and ultimately removing the financial functions [1]_ from NumPy. The functions will be moved to an independent repository, and provided to the community as a separate package with the name ``numpy_financial``.
Motivation and scope --------------------
The NumPy financial functions [1]_ are the 10 functions ``fv``, ``ipmt``, ``irr``, ``mirr``, ``nper``, ``npv``, ``pmt``, ``ppmt``, ``pv`` and ``rate``. The functions provide elementary financial calculations such as future value, net present value, etc. These functions were added to NumPy in 2008 [2]_.
In May, 2009, a request by Joe Harrington to add a function called ``xirr`` to the financial functions triggered a long thread about these functions [3]_. One important point that came up in that thread is that a "real" financial library must be able to handle real dates. The NumPy financial functions do not work with actual dates or calendars. The preference for a more capable library independent of NumPy was expressed several times in that thread.
In June, 2009, D. L. Goldsmith expressed concerns about the correctness of the implementations of some of the financial functions [4]_. It was suggested then to move the financial functions out of NumPy to an independent package.
In a GitHub issue in 2013 [5]_, Nathaniel Smith suggested moving the financial functions from the top-level namespace to ``numpy.financial``. He also suggested giving the functions better names. Responses at that time included the suggestion to deprecate them and move them from NumPy to a separate package. This issue is still open.
Later in 2013 [6]_, it was suggested on the mailing list that these functions be removed from NumPy.
The arguments for the removal of these functions from NumPy:
* They are too specialized for NumPy. * They are not actually useful for "real world" financial calculations, because they do not handle real dates and calendars. * The definition of "correctness" for some of these functions seems to be a matter of convention, and the current NumPy developers do not have the background to judge their correctness. * There has been little interest among past and present NumPy developers in maintaining these functions.
The main arguments for keeping the functions in NumPy are:
* Removing these functions will be disruptive for some users. Current users will have to add the new ``numpy_financial`` package to their dependencies, and then modify their code to use the new package. * The functions provided, while not "industrial strength", are apparently similar to functions provided by spreadsheets and some calculators. Having them available in NumPy makes it easier for some developers to migrate their software to Python and NumPy.
It is clear from comments in the mailing list discussions and in the GitHub issues that many current NumPy developers believe the benefits of removing the functions outweigh the costs. For example, from [5]_::
The financial functions should probably be part of a separate package -- Charles Harris
If there's a better package we can point people to we could just deprecate them and then remove them entirely... I'd be fine with that too... -- Nathaniel Smith
+1 to deprecate them. If no other package exists, it can be created if someone feels the need for that. -- Ralf Gommers
I feel pretty strongly that we should deprecate these. If nobody on numpy’s core team is interested in maintaining them, then it is purely a drag on development for NumPy. -- Stephan Hoyer
And from the 2013 mailing list discussion, about removing the functions from NumPy::
I am +1 as well, I don't think they should have been included in the first place. -- David Cournapeau
But not everyone was in favor of removal::
The fin routines are tiny and don't require much maintenance once written. If we made an effort (putting up pages with examples of common financial calculations and collecting those under a topical web page, then linking to that page from various places and talking it up), I would think they could attract users looking for a free way to play with financial scenarios. [...] So, I would say we keep them. If ours are not the best, we should bring them up to snuff. -- Joe Harrington
For an idea of the maintenance burden of the financial functions, one can look for all the GitHub issues [7]_ and pull requests [8]_ that have the tag ``component: numpy.lib.financial``.
One method for measuring the effect of removing these functions is to find all the packages on GitHub that use them. Such a search can be performed with the ``python-api-inspect`` service [9]_. A search for all uses of the NumPy financial functions finds just eight repositories. (See the comments in [5]_ for the actual SQL query.)
Implementation --------------
* Create a new Python package, ``numpy_financial``, to be maintained in the top-level NumPy github organization. This repository will contain the definitions and unit tests for the financial functions. The package will be added to PyPI so it can be installed with ``pip``. * Deprecate the financial functions in the ``numpy`` namespace, beginning in NumPy version 1.18. Remove the financial functions from NumPy version 1.20.
Backward compatibility ----------------------
The removal of these functions breaks backward compatibility, as explained earlier. The effects are mitigated by providing the ``numpy_financial`` library.
Alternatives ------------
The following alternatives were mentioned in [5]_:
* *Maintain the functions as they are (i.e. do nothing).* A review of the history makes clear that this is not the preference of many NumPy developers. A recurring comment is that the functions simply do not belong in NumPy. When that sentiment is combined with the history of bug reports and the ongoing questions about the correctness of the functions, the conclusion is that the cleanest solution is deprecation and removal. * *Move the functions from the ``numpy`` namespace to ``numpy.financial``.* This was the initial suggestion in [5]_. Such a change does not address the maintenance issues, and doesn't change the misfit that many developers see between these functions and NumPy. It causes disruption for the current users of these functions without addressing what many developers see as the fundamental problem.
Discussion ----------
Links to past mailing list discussions, and to relevant GitHub issues and pull requests, have already been given.
References and footnotes ------------------------
.. [1] Financial functions, https://numpy.org/doc/1.17/reference/routines.financial.html
.. [2] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Simple financial functions for NumPy",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-April/032353.html
.. [3] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "add xirr to numpy financial functions?",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-May/042645.html
.. [4] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Definitions of pv, fv, nper, pmt, and rate",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-June/043188.html
.. [5] Get financial functions out of main namespace, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880
.. [6] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Deprecation of financial routines",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-August/067409.html
.. [7] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` issues,
.. [8] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` pull request,
.. [9] Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect, https://github.com/Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect/
Copyright ---------
This document has been placed in the public domain.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Hi, Maybe worth asking over at the Pandas list? I bet there are more Python / finance people over there. Cheers, Matthew On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 7:11 PM Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on removing them from NumPy. I think there are plenty of alternatives already so many that we might even consider deprecating them just like SciPy misc module by pointing to alternatives.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:38 PM Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 08:56 -0400, Warren Weckesser wrote:
Github issue 2880 ("Get financial functions out of main namespace",
Very briefly, I am absolutely in favor of this.
Keeping the functions in numpy seems more of a liability than help anyone. And this push is more likely to help users by spurring development on a good replacement, than a practically unmaintained corner of NumPy that may seem like it solves a problem, but probably does so very poorly.
Moving them into a separate pip installable package seems like the best way forward until a better replacement, to which we can point users, comes up.
- Sebastian
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880) has been open since 2013. In a recent community meeting, it was suggested that we create a NEP to propose the removal of the financial functions from NumPy. I have submitted "NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy" in a pull request at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14399. A copy of the latest version of the NEP is below.
According to the NEP process document, "Once the PR is in place, the NEP should be announced on the mailing list for discussion (comments on the PR itself should be restricted to minor editorial and technical fixes)." This email is the announcement for NEP 32.
The NEP includes a brief summary of the history of the financial functions, and has links to several relevant mailing list threads, dating back to when the functions were added to NumPy in 2008. I recommend reviewing those threads before commenting here.
Warren
-----
================================================== NEP 32 — Remove the financial functions from NumPy ==================================================
:Author: Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> :Status: Draft :Type: Standards Track :Created: 2019-08-30
Abstract --------
We propose deprecating and ultimately removing the financial functions [1]_ from NumPy. The functions will be moved to an independent repository, and provided to the community as a separate package with the name ``numpy_financial``.
Motivation and scope --------------------
The NumPy financial functions [1]_ are the 10 functions ``fv``, ``ipmt``, ``irr``, ``mirr``, ``nper``, ``npv``, ``pmt``, ``ppmt``, ``pv`` and ``rate``. The functions provide elementary financial calculations such as future value, net present value, etc. These functions were added to NumPy in 2008 [2]_.
In May, 2009, a request by Joe Harrington to add a function called ``xirr`` to the financial functions triggered a long thread about these functions [3]_. One important point that came up in that thread is that a "real" financial library must be able to handle real dates. The NumPy financial functions do not work with actual dates or calendars. The preference for a more capable library independent of NumPy was expressed several times in that thread.
In June, 2009, D. L. Goldsmith expressed concerns about the correctness of the implementations of some of the financial functions [4]_. It was suggested then to move the financial functions out of NumPy to an independent package.
In a GitHub issue in 2013 [5]_, Nathaniel Smith suggested moving the financial functions from the top-level namespace to ``numpy.financial``. He also suggested giving the functions better names. Responses at that time included the suggestion to deprecate them and move them from NumPy to a separate package. This issue is still open.
Later in 2013 [6]_, it was suggested on the mailing list that these functions be removed from NumPy.
The arguments for the removal of these functions from NumPy:
* They are too specialized for NumPy. * They are not actually useful for "real world" financial calculations, because they do not handle real dates and calendars. * The definition of "correctness" for some of these functions seems to be a matter of convention, and the current NumPy developers do not have the background to judge their correctness. * There has been little interest among past and present NumPy developers in maintaining these functions.
The main arguments for keeping the functions in NumPy are:
* Removing these functions will be disruptive for some users. Current users will have to add the new ``numpy_financial`` package to their dependencies, and then modify their code to use the new package. * The functions provided, while not "industrial strength", are apparently similar to functions provided by spreadsheets and some calculators. Having them available in NumPy makes it easier for some developers to migrate their software to Python and NumPy.
It is clear from comments in the mailing list discussions and in the GitHub issues that many current NumPy developers believe the benefits of removing the functions outweigh the costs. For example, from [5]_::
The financial functions should probably be part of a separate package -- Charles Harris
If there's a better package we can point people to we could just deprecate them and then remove them entirely... I'd be fine with that too... -- Nathaniel Smith
+1 to deprecate them. If no other package exists, it can be created if someone feels the need for that. -- Ralf Gommers
I feel pretty strongly that we should deprecate these. If nobody on numpy’s core team is interested in maintaining them, then it is purely a drag on development for NumPy. -- Stephan Hoyer
And from the 2013 mailing list discussion, about removing the functions from NumPy::
I am +1 as well, I don't think they should have been included in the first place. -- David Cournapeau
But not everyone was in favor of removal::
The fin routines are tiny and don't require much maintenance once written. If we made an effort (putting up pages with examples of common financial calculations and collecting those under a topical web page, then linking to that page from various places and talking it up), I would think they could attract users looking for a free way to play with financial scenarios. [...] So, I would say we keep them. If ours are not the best, we should bring them up to snuff. -- Joe Harrington
For an idea of the maintenance burden of the financial functions, one can look for all the GitHub issues [7]_ and pull requests [8]_ that have the tag ``component: numpy.lib.financial``.
One method for measuring the effect of removing these functions is to find all the packages on GitHub that use them. Such a search can be performed with the ``python-api-inspect`` service [9]_. A search for all uses of the NumPy financial functions finds just eight repositories. (See the comments in [5]_ for the actual SQL query.)
Implementation --------------
* Create a new Python package, ``numpy_financial``, to be maintained in the top-level NumPy github organization. This repository will contain the definitions and unit tests for the financial functions. The package will be added to PyPI so it can be installed with ``pip``. * Deprecate the financial functions in the ``numpy`` namespace, beginning in NumPy version 1.18. Remove the financial functions from NumPy version 1.20.
Backward compatibility ----------------------
The removal of these functions breaks backward compatibility, as explained earlier. The effects are mitigated by providing the ``numpy_financial`` library.
Alternatives ------------
The following alternatives were mentioned in [5]_:
* *Maintain the functions as they are (i.e. do nothing).* A review of the history makes clear that this is not the preference of many NumPy developers. A recurring comment is that the functions simply do not belong in NumPy. When that sentiment is combined with the history of bug reports and the ongoing questions about the correctness of the functions, the conclusion is that the cleanest solution is deprecation and removal. * *Move the functions from the ``numpy`` namespace to ``numpy.financial``.* This was the initial suggestion in [5]_. Such a change does not address the maintenance issues, and doesn't change the misfit that many developers see between these functions and NumPy. It causes disruption for the current users of these functions without addressing what many developers see as the fundamental problem.
Discussion ----------
Links to past mailing list discussions, and to relevant GitHub issues and pull requests, have already been given.
References and footnotes ------------------------
.. [1] Financial functions, https://numpy.org/doc/1.17/reference/routines.financial.html
.. [2] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Simple financial functions for NumPy",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-April/032353.html
.. [3] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "add xirr to numpy financial functions?",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-May/042645.html
.. [4] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Definitions of pv, fv, nper, pmt, and rate",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-June/043188.html
.. [5] Get financial functions out of main namespace, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880
.. [6] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Deprecation of financial routines",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-August/067409.html
.. [7] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` issues,
.. [8] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` pull request,
.. [9] Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect, https://github.com/Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect/
Copyright ---------
This document has been placed in the public domain.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On 9/4/19, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
Maybe worth asking over at the Pandas list? I bet there are more Python / finance people over there.
OK, I sent a message to the PyData mailing list. Warren
Cheers,
Matthew
On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 7:11 PM Ilhan Polat <ilhanpolat@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on removing them from NumPy. I think there are plenty of alternatives already so many that we might even consider deprecating them just like SciPy misc module by pointing to alternatives.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 6:38 PM Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Tue, 2019-09-03 at 08:56 -0400, Warren Weckesser wrote:
Github issue 2880 ("Get financial functions out of main namespace",
Very briefly, I am absolutely in favor of this.
Keeping the functions in numpy seems more of a liability than help anyone. And this push is more likely to help users by spurring development on a good replacement, than a practically unmaintained corner of NumPy that may seem like it solves a problem, but probably does so very poorly.
Moving them into a separate pip installable package seems like the best way forward until a better replacement, to which we can point users, comes up.
- Sebastian
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880) has been open since 2013. In a recent community meeting, it was suggested that we create a NEP to propose the removal of the financial functions from NumPy. I have submitted "NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy" in a pull request at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14399. A copy of the latest version of the NEP is below.
According to the NEP process document, "Once the PR is in place, the NEP should be announced on the mailing list for discussion (comments on the PR itself should be restricted to minor editorial and technical fixes)." This email is the announcement for NEP 32.
The NEP includes a brief summary of the history of the financial functions, and has links to several relevant mailing list threads, dating back to when the functions were added to NumPy in 2008. I recommend reviewing those threads before commenting here.
Warren
-----
================================================== NEP 32 — Remove the financial functions from NumPy ==================================================
:Author: Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> :Status: Draft :Type: Standards Track :Created: 2019-08-30
Abstract --------
We propose deprecating and ultimately removing the financial functions [1]_ from NumPy. The functions will be moved to an independent repository, and provided to the community as a separate package with the name ``numpy_financial``.
Motivation and scope --------------------
The NumPy financial functions [1]_ are the 10 functions ``fv``, ``ipmt``, ``irr``, ``mirr``, ``nper``, ``npv``, ``pmt``, ``ppmt``, ``pv`` and ``rate``. The functions provide elementary financial calculations such as future value, net present value, etc. These functions were added to NumPy in 2008 [2]_.
In May, 2009, a request by Joe Harrington to add a function called ``xirr`` to the financial functions triggered a long thread about these functions [3]_. One important point that came up in that thread is that a "real" financial library must be able to handle real dates. The NumPy financial functions do not work with actual dates or calendars. The preference for a more capable library independent of NumPy was expressed several times in that thread.
In June, 2009, D. L. Goldsmith expressed concerns about the correctness of the implementations of some of the financial functions [4]_. It was suggested then to move the financial functions out of NumPy to an independent package.
In a GitHub issue in 2013 [5]_, Nathaniel Smith suggested moving the financial functions from the top-level namespace to ``numpy.financial``. He also suggested giving the functions better names. Responses at that time included the suggestion to deprecate them and move them from NumPy to a separate package. This issue is still open.
Later in 2013 [6]_, it was suggested on the mailing list that these functions be removed from NumPy.
The arguments for the removal of these functions from NumPy:
* They are too specialized for NumPy. * They are not actually useful for "real world" financial calculations, because they do not handle real dates and calendars. * The definition of "correctness" for some of these functions seems to be a matter of convention, and the current NumPy developers do not have the background to judge their correctness. * There has been little interest among past and present NumPy developers in maintaining these functions.
The main arguments for keeping the functions in NumPy are:
* Removing these functions will be disruptive for some users. Current users will have to add the new ``numpy_financial`` package to their dependencies, and then modify their code to use the new package. * The functions provided, while not "industrial strength", are apparently similar to functions provided by spreadsheets and some calculators. Having them available in NumPy makes it easier for some developers to migrate their software to Python and NumPy.
It is clear from comments in the mailing list discussions and in the GitHub issues that many current NumPy developers believe the benefits of removing the functions outweigh the costs. For example, from [5]_::
The financial functions should probably be part of a separate package -- Charles Harris
If there's a better package we can point people to we could just deprecate them and then remove them entirely... I'd be fine with that too... -- Nathaniel Smith
+1 to deprecate them. If no other package exists, it can be created if someone feels the need for that. -- Ralf Gommers
I feel pretty strongly that we should deprecate these. If nobody on numpy’s core team is interested in maintaining them, then it is purely a drag on development for NumPy. -- Stephan Hoyer
And from the 2013 mailing list discussion, about removing the functions from NumPy::
I am +1 as well, I don't think they should have been included in the first place. -- David Cournapeau
But not everyone was in favor of removal::
The fin routines are tiny and don't require much maintenance once written. If we made an effort (putting up pages with examples of common financial calculations and collecting those under a topical web page, then linking to that page from various places and talking it up), I would think they could attract users looking for a free way to play with financial scenarios. [...] So, I would say we keep them. If ours are not the best, we should bring them up to snuff. -- Joe Harrington
For an idea of the maintenance burden of the financial functions, one can look for all the GitHub issues [7]_ and pull requests [8]_ that have the tag ``component: numpy.lib.financial``.
One method for measuring the effect of removing these functions is to find all the packages on GitHub that use them. Such a search can be performed with the ``python-api-inspect`` service [9]_. A search for all uses of the NumPy financial functions finds just eight repositories. (See the comments in [5]_ for the actual SQL query.)
Implementation --------------
* Create a new Python package, ``numpy_financial``, to be maintained in the top-level NumPy github organization. This repository will contain the definitions and unit tests for the financial functions. The package will be added to PyPI so it can be installed with ``pip``. * Deprecate the financial functions in the ``numpy`` namespace, beginning in NumPy version 1.18. Remove the financial functions from NumPy version 1.20.
Backward compatibility ----------------------
The removal of these functions breaks backward compatibility, as explained earlier. The effects are mitigated by providing the ``numpy_financial`` library.
Alternatives ------------
The following alternatives were mentioned in [5]_:
* *Maintain the functions as they are (i.e. do nothing).* A review of the history makes clear that this is not the preference of many NumPy developers. A recurring comment is that the functions simply do not belong in NumPy. When that sentiment is combined with the history of bug reports and the ongoing questions about the correctness of the functions, the conclusion is that the cleanest solution is deprecation and removal. * *Move the functions from the ``numpy`` namespace to ``numpy.financial``.* This was the initial suggestion in [5]_. Such a change does not address the maintenance issues, and doesn't change the misfit that many developers see between these functions and NumPy. It causes disruption for the current users of these functions without addressing what many developers see as the fundamental problem.
Discussion ----------
Links to past mailing list discussions, and to relevant GitHub issues and pull requests, have already been given.
References and footnotes ------------------------
.. [1] Financial functions, https://numpy.org/doc/1.17/reference/routines.financial.html
.. [2] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Simple financial functions for NumPy",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-April/032353.html
.. [3] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "add xirr to numpy financial functions?",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-May/042645.html
.. [4] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Definitions of pv, fv, nper, pmt, and rate",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-June/043188.html
.. [5] Get financial functions out of main namespace, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880
.. [6] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Deprecation of financial routines",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-August/067409.html
.. [7] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` issues,
.. [8] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` pull request,
.. [9] Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect, https://github.com/Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect/
Copyright ---------
This document has been placed in the public domain.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[coming over from the pydata post] I just checked about ~150KLOC of our Python code in a financial context, written by about twenty developers over about four years. Almost every function uses numpy, sometimes directly and sometimes via pandas. It seems like these functions were never used anywhere, and the lead dev on one of the projects responded "never used them; didn't even know they exist". I knew they existed, but even on the rare occasion I need the functionality I need better control over the dates, which means for practical purposes I need something which supports Series natively anyhow. As it is, they also clutter up the namespace in unfriendly ways: if there's going to be a top-level function called np.rate I don't think this is the one it should be. Admittedly that's more an argument against their current location. Although it wouldn't be useful for us, I could imagine someone finding a package which provides numpy-compatible versions of the many OpenFormula (or whatever the spec is called) functions helpful. Having numpy carry a tiny subset of them doesn't feel productive. +1 for removing them. Doug -- Sent from: http://numpy-discussion.10968.n7.nabble.com/
On 9/9/19, D.S. McNeil <dsm054@gmail.com> wrote:
[coming over from the pydata post]
I just checked about ~150KLOC of our Python code in a financial context, written by about twenty developers over about four years. Almost every function uses numpy, sometimes directly and sometimes via pandas.
It seems like these functions were never used anywhere, and the lead dev on one of the projects responded "never used them; didn't even know they exist". I knew they existed, but even on the rare occasion I need the functionality I need better control over the dates, which means for practical purposes I need something which supports Series natively anyhow.
As it is, they also clutter up the namespace in unfriendly ways: if there's going to be a top-level function called np.rate I don't think this is the one it should be. Admittedly that's more an argument against their current location.
Although it wouldn't be useful for us, I could imagine someone finding a package which provides numpy-compatible versions of the many OpenFormula (or whatever the spec is called) functions helpful. Having numpy carry a tiny subset of them doesn't feel productive.
+1 for removing them.
Doug
Thanks Doug, that's useful feedback. Warren
-- Sent from: http://numpy-discussion.10968.n7.nabble.com/ _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On 9/3/19, Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> wrote:
Github issue 2880 ("Get financial functions out of main namespace", https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880) has been open since 2013. In a recent community meeting, it was suggested that we create a NEP to propose the removal of the financial functions from NumPy. I have submitted "NEP 32: Remove the financial functions from NumPy" in a pull request at https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/14399. A copy of the latest version of the NEP is below.
FYI, the NEP is now also available at https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0032-remove-financial-functions.html. Warren
According to the NEP process document, "Once the PR is in place, the NEP should be announced on the mailing list for discussion (comments on the PR itself should be restricted to minor editorial and technical fixes)." This email is the announcement for NEP 32.
The NEP includes a brief summary of the history of the financial functions, and has links to several relevant mailing list threads, dating back to when the functions were added to NumPy in 2008. I recommend reviewing those threads before commenting here.
Warren
-----
================================================== NEP 32 — Remove the financial functions from NumPy ==================================================
:Author: Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser@gmail.com> :Status: Draft :Type: Standards Track :Created: 2019-08-30
Abstract --------
We propose deprecating and ultimately removing the financial functions [1]_ from NumPy. The functions will be moved to an independent repository, and provided to the community as a separate package with the name ``numpy_financial``.
Motivation and scope --------------------
The NumPy financial functions [1]_ are the 10 functions ``fv``, ``ipmt``, ``irr``, ``mirr``, ``nper``, ``npv``, ``pmt``, ``ppmt``, ``pv`` and ``rate``. The functions provide elementary financial calculations such as future value, net present value, etc. These functions were added to NumPy in 2008 [2]_.
In May, 2009, a request by Joe Harrington to add a function called ``xirr`` to the financial functions triggered a long thread about these functions [3]_. One important point that came up in that thread is that a "real" financial library must be able to handle real dates. The NumPy financial functions do not work with actual dates or calendars. The preference for a more capable library independent of NumPy was expressed several times in that thread.
In June, 2009, D. L. Goldsmith expressed concerns about the correctness of the implementations of some of the financial functions [4]_. It was suggested then to move the financial functions out of NumPy to an independent package.
In a GitHub issue in 2013 [5]_, Nathaniel Smith suggested moving the financial functions from the top-level namespace to ``numpy.financial``. He also suggested giving the functions better names. Responses at that time included the suggestion to deprecate them and move them from NumPy to a separate package. This issue is still open.
Later in 2013 [6]_, it was suggested on the mailing list that these functions be removed from NumPy.
The arguments for the removal of these functions from NumPy:
* They are too specialized for NumPy. * They are not actually useful for "real world" financial calculations, because they do not handle real dates and calendars. * The definition of "correctness" for some of these functions seems to be a matter of convention, and the current NumPy developers do not have the background to judge their correctness. * There has been little interest among past and present NumPy developers in maintaining these functions.
The main arguments for keeping the functions in NumPy are:
* Removing these functions will be disruptive for some users. Current users will have to add the new ``numpy_financial`` package to their dependencies, and then modify their code to use the new package. * The functions provided, while not "industrial strength", are apparently similar to functions provided by spreadsheets and some calculators. Having them available in NumPy makes it easier for some developers to migrate their software to Python and NumPy.
It is clear from comments in the mailing list discussions and in the GitHub issues that many current NumPy developers believe the benefits of removing the functions outweigh the costs. For example, from [5]_::
The financial functions should probably be part of a separate package -- Charles Harris
If there's a better package we can point people to we could just deprecate them and then remove them entirely... I'd be fine with that too... -- Nathaniel Smith
+1 to deprecate them. If no other package exists, it can be created if someone feels the need for that. -- Ralf Gommers
I feel pretty strongly that we should deprecate these. If nobody on numpy’s core team is interested in maintaining them, then it is purely a drag on development for NumPy. -- Stephan Hoyer
And from the 2013 mailing list discussion, about removing the functions from NumPy::
I am +1 as well, I don't think they should have been included in the first place. -- David Cournapeau
But not everyone was in favor of removal::
The fin routines are tiny and don't require much maintenance once written. If we made an effort (putting up pages with examples of common financial calculations and collecting those under a topical web page, then linking to that page from various places and talking it up), I would think they could attract users looking for a free way to play with financial scenarios. [...] So, I would say we keep them. If ours are not the best, we should bring them up to snuff. -- Joe Harrington
For an idea of the maintenance burden of the financial functions, one can look for all the GitHub issues [7]_ and pull requests [8]_ that have the tag ``component: numpy.lib.financial``.
One method for measuring the effect of removing these functions is to find all the packages on GitHub that use them. Such a search can be performed with the ``python-api-inspect`` service [9]_. A search for all uses of the NumPy financial functions finds just eight repositories. (See the comments in [5]_ for the actual SQL query.)
Implementation --------------
* Create a new Python package, ``numpy_financial``, to be maintained in the top-level NumPy github organization. This repository will contain the definitions and unit tests for the financial functions. The package will be added to PyPI so it can be installed with ``pip``. * Deprecate the financial functions in the ``numpy`` namespace, beginning in NumPy version 1.18. Remove the financial functions from NumPy version 1.20.
Backward compatibility ----------------------
The removal of these functions breaks backward compatibility, as explained earlier. The effects are mitigated by providing the ``numpy_financial`` library.
Alternatives ------------
The following alternatives were mentioned in [5]_:
* *Maintain the functions as they are (i.e. do nothing).* A review of the history makes clear that this is not the preference of many NumPy developers. A recurring comment is that the functions simply do not belong in NumPy. When that sentiment is combined with the history of bug reports and the ongoing questions about the correctness of the functions, the conclusion is that the cleanest solution is deprecation and removal. * *Move the functions from the ``numpy`` namespace to ``numpy.financial``.* This was the initial suggestion in [5]_. Such a change does not address the maintenance issues, and doesn't change the misfit that many developers see between these functions and NumPy. It causes disruption for the current users of these functions without addressing what many developers see as the fundamental problem.
Discussion ----------
Links to past mailing list discussions, and to relevant GitHub issues and pull requests, have already been given.
References and footnotes ------------------------
.. [1] Financial functions, https://numpy.org/doc/1.17/reference/routines.financial.html
.. [2] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Simple financial functions for NumPy",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2008-April/032353.html
.. [3] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "add xirr to numpy financial functions?", https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-May/042645.html
.. [4] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Definitions of pv, fv, nper, pmt, and rate", https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2009-June/043188.html
.. [5] Get financial functions out of main namespace, https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/2880
.. [6] Numpy-discussion mailing list, "Deprecation of financial routines",
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2013-August/067409.html
.. [7] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` issues,
.. [8] ``component: numpy.lib.financial`` pull request,
.. [9] Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect, https://github.com/Quansight-Labs/python-api-inspect/
Copyright ---------
This document has been placed in the public domain.
participants (5)
-
D.S. McNeil -
Ilhan Polat -
Matthew Brett -
Sebastian Berg -
Warren Weckesser