On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:31 PM, CJ Carey <perimosocord...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I agree with Ralf; coupling these changes to sparse is a bad idea. >> >> I think that scipy.sparse will be an important consideration during the >> deprecation process, though, perhaps as an indicator of how painful the >> transition might be for third party code. >> >> I'm +1 for splitting matrices out into a standalone package. >> > > Decoupled or not, sparse still needs to be dealt with. What is the plan? > My view would be: - keep current sparse matrices as is (with improvements, like __numpy_func__ and the various performance improvements that regularly get done) - once one of the sparse *array* implementations progresses far enough, merge that and encourage people to switch over - in the far future, once packages like scikit-learn have switched to the new sparse arrays, the sparse matrices could potentially also be split off as a separate package, in the same way as we did for weave and now can do for npmatrix. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
