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

[Tom DLT]

I vote +1

Tom

Le lun. 16 sept. 2019 à 06:30, Joel Nothman <joel.nothman at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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 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 <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 <joel.nothman at gmail.com
>> > <mailto: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,
>> >     <jeremie.du-boisberranger at inria.fr
>> >     <mailto: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
>> >>         <joel.nothman at gmail.com <mailto: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
>> >>             scikit-learn at python.org <mailto:scikit-learn at python.org>
>> >>             https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>         --
>> >>         Guillaume Lemaitre
>> >>         INRIA Saclay - Parietal team
>> >>         Center for Data Science Paris-Saclay
>> >>         https://glemaitre.github.io/
>> >>
>> >>         _______________________________________________
>> >>         scikit-learn mailing list
>> >>         scikit-learn at python.org  <mailto:scikit-learn at python.org>
>> >>         https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>> >         _______________________________________________
>> >         scikit-learn mailing list
>> >         scikit-learn at python.org <mailto:scikit-learn at python.org>
>> >         https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
>> >
>> >     _______________________________________________
>> >     scikit-learn mailing list
>> >     scikit-learn at python.org <mailto:scikit-learn at python.org>
>> >     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
>> >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> scikit-learn mailing list
>> scikit-learn at python.org
>> 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/d660a51a/attachment-0001.html>