[scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

[Bertrand Thirion]

+1 for the geenralization of kw arguments. 
This is obviously relevant for __init__ methods, why good old (X,y) should remain positional. 
Best, 
Bertrand 

> De: "Joel Nothman" <joel.nothman at gmail.com>
> À: "Scikit-learn mailing list" <scikit-learn at python.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 16 Septembre 2019 15:28:57
> Objet: Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments

> Btw, consensus is defined by 2/3 of cast votes by core devs, according to our
> Governance. [ https://scikit-learn.org/dev/about.html#authors |
> https://scikit-learn.org/dev/about.html#authors ] lists 20 core devs.
> That is, we could consider this resolved after 14 votes in favour.
> So far, if I've interpreted correctly:

> +1 (adrin, nicolas, hanmin, joel, guillaume, jeremie, thomas, vlad, roman) = 9.

> I've not understood a clear position from Alex. I'm assuming Andreas is in
> favour given his comments elsewhere, but we've not seen comment here.

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 20:06, Roman Yurchak < [ mailto:rth.yurchak at gmail.com |
> rth.yurchak at gmail.com ] > wrote:

>> +1 assuming we are careful about continuing to allow some frequently
>> used positional arguments, even in __init__.

>> For instance,

>> n_components = 10
>> pca = PCA(n_components)

>> is still more readable, I think, than,

>> pca = PCA(n_components=n_components)

>> --
>> Roman

>> On 15/09/2019 00:21, Thomas J Fan wrote:
>> > +1 from me

>>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 8:12 AM Joel Nothman < [ mailto:joel.nothman at gmail.com |
>> > joel.nothman at gmail.com ]
>> > <mailto: [ mailto:joel.nothman at gmail.com | joel.nothman at gmail.com ] >> wrote:

>> > I am +1 for this change.

>> > I agree that users will accommodate the syntax sooner or later.

>> > On Fri., 13 Sep. 2019, 7:54 pm Jeremie du Boisberranger,
>>> < [ mailto:jeremie.du-boisberranger at inria.fr | jeremie.du-boisberranger at inria.fr
>> > ]
>>> <mailto: [ mailto:jeremie.du-boisberranger at inria.fr |
>> > jeremie.du-boisberranger at inria.fr ] >> wrote:

>> > I don't know what is the policy about a sklearn 1.0 w.r.t api
>> > changes.

>> > If it's meant to be a special release with possible api changes
>> > without deprecation cycles, I think this change is a good
>> > candidate for 1.0


>> > Otherwise I'm +1 and agree with Guillaume, people will get used
>> > to it by using it.

>> > Jérémie



>> > On 12/09/2019 10:06, Guillaume Lemaître wrote:
>> >> To the question: do we want to utilise Python 3's
>> >> force-keyword-argument syntax
>> >> and to change existing APIs which support arguments
>> >> positionally to use this
>> >> syntax, via a deprecation period?

>> >> I am +1.

>> >> IMO, even if the syntax might be unknown, it will remain
>> >> unknown until projects
>> >> from the ecosystem are not using it.

>> >> To the question: which methods should be impacted?

>> >> I think we should be as gentle as possible at first. I am a
>> >> little concerned about
>> >> breaking some codes which were working fine before.

>> >> On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 04:43, Joel Nothman
>>>> < [ mailto:joel.nothman at gmail.com | joel.nothman at gmail.com ] <mailto: [
>> >> mailto:joel.nothman at gmail.com | joel.nothman at gmail.com ] >> wrote:

>> >> These there details of specific API changes to be decided:

>> >> The question being put, as per the SLEP, is:
>> >> do we want to utilise Python 3's force-keyword-argument syntax
>> >> and to change existing APIs which support arguments
>> >> positionally to use this syntax, via a deprecation period?
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> scikit-learn mailing list
>>>> [ mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] <mailto: [
>> >> mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] >
>>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn |
>> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ]



>> >> --
>> >> Guillaume Lemaitre
>> >> INRIA Saclay - Parietal team
>> >> Center for Data Science Paris-Saclay
>> >> [ https://glemaitre.github.io/ | https://glemaitre.github.io/ ]

>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> scikit-learn mailing list
>>>> [ mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] <mailto: [
>> >> mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] >
>>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn |
>> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ]
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > scikit-learn mailing list
>>> [ mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] <mailto: [
>> > mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] >
>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn |
>> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ]

>> > _______________________________________________
>> > scikit-learn mailing list
>>> [ mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] <mailto: [
>> > mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ] >
>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn |
>> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ]


>> > _______________________________________________
>> > scikit-learn mailing list
>> > [ mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ]
>>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn |
>> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ]


>> _______________________________________________
>> scikit-learn mailing list
>> [ mailto:scikit-learn at python.org | scikit-learn at python.org ]
>> [ https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn |
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ]

> _______________________________________________
> scikit-learn mailing list
> scikit-learn at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scikit-learn/attachments/20190916/7934757a/attachment.html>