[Numpy-discussion] Proposal to accept NEP-18, __array_function__ protocol

Stephan Hoyer shoyer at gmail.com
Thu Sep 20 17:05:00 EDT 2018

On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 2:33 AM Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Stephan Hoyer <shoyer at 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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180920/db562c84/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list