[Numpy-discussion] copy="never" discussion and no deprecation cycle?
ben.v.root at gmail.com
Wed Jun 23 22:34:46 EDT 2021
Why not both? The definition of the enum might live in a proper namespace
location, but I see no reason why `np.copy.IF_NEEDED =
np.flags.CopyFlgs.IF_NEEDED` can't be done (I mean, adding the enum members
as attributes to the `np.copy()` function). Seems perfectly reasonable to
me, and reads pretty nicely, too. It isn't like we are dropping support for
the booleans, so those are still around for easy typing.
On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:26 PM Stefan van der Walt <stefanv at berkeley.edu>
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021, at 18:01, Juan Nunez-Iglesias wrote:
> > Personally I was a fan of the Enum approach. People dislike it because
> > it is not “Pythonic”, but imho that is an accident of history because
> > Enums only appeared (iirc) in Python 3.4. In fact, they are the right
> > data structure for this particular problem, so for my money we should
> > *make it* Pythonic by starting to use it everywhere where we have a
> > finite list of choices.
> The enum definitely feels like the right abstraction. But the resulting
> API is clunky because of naming and top-level scarcity.
> Hence the suggestion to tag it onto np.copy, but there is an argument to
> be made for consistency by placing all enums under np.flags or similar.
> Still, np.flags.copy.IF_NEEDED gets long.
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion