[Numpy-discussion] defining a NumPy API standard?

[Marten van Kerkwijk]

Hi Stefan,

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Stefan van der Walt <stefanv at berkeley.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Marten,
>
> On Sat, 01 Jun 2019 12:11:38 -0400, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote:
> > Third, we could actual implementing the logical groupings identified in
> the
> > code base (and describing them!). Currently, it is a mess: for the C
> files,
> > I typically have to grep to even find where things are done, and while
> for
> > the functions defined in python files that is not necessary, many have
> > historical rather than logical groupings (looking at you,
> `from_numeric`!),
> > and even more descriptive ones like `shape_base` are split over `lib` and
> > `core`. I think it would help everybody if we went to a python-like
> layout,
> > with a true core and libraries such as polynomial, fft, ma, etc.
>
> How hard do you think it would be to address this issue?  You seem to
> have some notion of which pain points should be prioritized, and it
> might be useful to jot those down somewhere (tracking issue on GitHub?).
>

The python side would, I think, not be too hard. But I don't really have
that much of a notion - it would very much be informed by making a list
first. For the C parts, I feel even more at a loss: one really would have
to start with a summary of what is actually there (and I think the
organization may well be quite logical already; I've not so felt it was
wrong as in need of an overview).

Somewhat of an aside, but relevant for the general discussion:
updating/rewriting the user documentation may well be the best *first*
step. It certainly doesn't hurt to try to make some list now, but my guess
that the best one will emerge only when one tries to summarize what a new
user should know/understand.

All the best,

Marten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20190603/05985c87/attachment.html>