[Numpy-discussion] Advanced indexing: "fancy" vs. orthogonal
robert.kern at gmail.com
Sat Apr 4 05:15:47 EDT 2015
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
> > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
> >> So I'd be very happy to see worked out proposals for any or
> >> all of these approaches. It strikes me as really premature to be
> >> issuing proclamations about what changes might be considered. There is
> >> really no danger to *considering* a proposal;
> > Sorry, I have to disagree. Numpy is already seen by some as having a
> > track record on backwards compatibility. Having core developers say
> > some backcompat break to how indexing works and we'll consider it"
> > stance on that look even worse. Of course everyone is free to make any
> > technical proposal they deem fit and we'll consider the merits of it.
> > However I'd like us to be clear that we do care strongly about backwards
> > compatibility and that the fundamentals of the core of Numpy (things
> > indexing, broadcasting, dtypes and ufuncs) will not be changed in
> > backwards-incompatible ways.
> > Ralf
> > P.S. also not for a possible numpy 2.0 (or have we learned nothing from
> > Python3?).
> I agree 100% that we should and do care strongly about backwards
> compatibility. But you're saying in one sentence that we should tell
> people that we won't consider backcompat breaks, and then in the next
> sentence that of course we actually will consider them (even if we
> almost always reject them). Basically, I think saying one thing and
> doing another is not a good way to build people's trust.
There is a difference between politely considering what proposals people
send us uninvited and inviting people to work on specific proposals. That
is what Ralf was getting at.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion