Proposal to accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposal to accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath

Nathaniel Smith
Hi all,

I propose that we accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath:

http://www.numpy.org/neps/nep-0015-merge-multiarray-umath.html

The core part of this proposal was uncontroversial. The main point of
discussion was whether it was OK to deprecate set_numeric_ops, or
whether it had some legitimate use cases. The conclusion was that in
all the cases where set_numeric_ops is useful,
PyUFunc_ReplaceLoopBySignature is a strictly better alternative, so
there's no reason not to deprecate set_numeric_ops. So at this point I
think the whole proposal is uncontroversial, and we can go ahead and
accept it.

If there are no substantive objections within 7 days from this email,
then the NEP will be accepted; see NEP 0 for more details:
http://www.numpy.org/neps/nep-0000.html

-n

--
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath

Nathaniel Smith
Note that this is the first formal proposal to accept a NEP using our
new process (yay!). While writing it I realized that the current text
about this in NEP 0 is a bit terse, so I've also just submitted a PR
to expand that section:

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/11459

-n

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:18 PM, Nathaniel Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I propose that we accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath:
>
> http://www.numpy.org/neps/nep-0015-merge-multiarray-umath.html
>
> The core part of this proposal was uncontroversial. The main point of
> discussion was whether it was OK to deprecate set_numeric_ops, or
> whether it had some legitimate use cases. The conclusion was that in
> all the cases where set_numeric_ops is useful,
> PyUFunc_ReplaceLoopBySignature is a strictly better alternative, so
> there's no reason not to deprecate set_numeric_ops. So at this point I
> think the whole proposal is uncontroversial, and we can go ahead and
> accept it.
>
> If there are no substantive objections within 7 days from this email,
> then the NEP will be accepted; see NEP 0 for more details:
> http://www.numpy.org/neps/nep-0000.html
>
> -n
>
> --
> Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org



--
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath

Marten van Kerkwijk
Agreed on accepting the NEP! But it is not the first proposal to accept under the new rules - that goes to the broadcasting NEP (though perhaps I wasn't sufficiently explicit in stating that I was starting a count-down...). -- Marten

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposal to accept NEP 15: Merging multiarray and umath

Nathaniel Smith
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:28 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Agreed on accepting the NEP! But it is not the first proposal to accept
> under the new rules - that goes to the broadcasting NEP (though perhaps I
> wasn't sufficiently explicit in stating that I was starting a
> count-down...). -- Marten

Oh sorry, I missed that! (Which I guess is some evidence in favor of
starting a new thread :-).)

-n

--
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion