I agree with Eric: duplicating the existing ones in sp.datasets right away and placing the appropriate deprecation warnings seems like a good way to get rid of it. On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 11:47 PM, Bennet Fauber <bennet@umich.edu> wrote:
Would having a single datasets library increase visibility and potentially encourage the use of one dataset for multiple purposes? If they are roughly indexed, as the ones at the R datasets package site are, that could also be helpful for people who are finding their way to analytic capability via the catalog of examples. Someone looking for electorcardiogram might get led to signal that way, if that matters.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Robert Kern <robert.kern@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 2:27 PM, Lars G. <lagru@mailbox.org> wrote:
Is there a reason not to include those function where they'll most likely be used? Meaning the images `ascent` and `face` could move to `scipy.ndimage` and the signal `electrocardiogram` to `scipy.signal`?
It would make them harder to discover, at least for me.
On the developer side, if everything is in one subpackage, it would be easier to keep track how many bytes are being consumed by data. The scipy.datasets namespace would be a good place to put any common data-loading code (for instance, if we start adding large datasets that will be downloaded upon first use rather than being distributed in the scipy wheel).
-- Robert Kern
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev