> 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
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:31 PM, CJ Carey
> 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, pe
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 5:31 PM, CJ Carey 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 thir
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 sta
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:51 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>> charlesr.har.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 4:35 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It looks to me like we're getting a bit off track here. The sparse
>>> ma
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 12:26 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It looks to me like we're getting a bit off track here. The sparse
>> matrices in scipy are heavily used, and despite rough edges pretty good at
>> what they do. Deprecati
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Todd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 6, 2017 20:28, "Ralf Gommers" wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Todd wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2017 20:28, "Ralf Gommers" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>
On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> It seems there are two steps that can be taken now and are needed no
> matter what:
>
> 1. Add numpy documentation describing the preferred way to handle
> matrices, extolling the virtues of @, an
On Jan 6, 2017 20:28, "Ralf Gommers" wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>
>> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate np.matrix in docs.
>> 2
Hi All,
It seems there are two steps that can be taken now and are needed no
matter what:
1. Add numpy documentation describing the preferred way to handle
matrices, extolling the virtues of @, and move np.matrix documentation
to a deprecated section
2. Start on a new `sparse` class that is base
Hi all! I've been lurking on this discussion, and don't have too much to add
except to encourage a fast deprecation: I can't wait for sparse matrices to
have an element-wise multiply operator.
On 7 Jan 2017, 7:52 PM +1100, Ralf Gommers , wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Nathaniel Smi
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM,
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommer
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:37 PM, wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> wrote:
>>>
This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be s
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 8:28 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>>
>>> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate n
On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 2:21 PM, CJ Carey wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>>
>> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate np.matrix in docs.
>> 2. In say 1.5 years: start issuing visible deprec
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> This sounds like a reasonable idea. Timeline could be something like:
>
> 1. Now: create new package, deprecate np.matrix in docs.
> 2. In say 1.5 years: start issuing visible deprecation warnings in numpy
> 3. After 2020: remove matrix from n
On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Bryan Van de Ven
wrote:
> There's a good chance that bokeh.charts will be split off into a
> separately distributed package as well. Hopefully being a much smaller,
> pure Python project makes it a more accessible target for anyone interested
> in maintaining it, a
There's a good chance that bokeh.charts will be split off into a separately
distributed package as well. Hopefully being a much smaller, pure Python
project makes it a more accessible target for anyone interested in maintaining
it, and if no one is interested in it anymore, well that fact become
That's not a bad idea. Matplotlib is currently considering something
similar for its mlab module. It has been there since the beginning, but it
is very outdated and very out-of-scope for matplotlib. However, there are
still lots of code out there that depends on it. So, we are looking to
split it o
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
> operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Python 3,
> especially in the classroom, we should consider the real possibility of
> deprecating t
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> How about dropping python 2 support at the s
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
> [...]
> >> How about dropping python 2 support at the same time, then we can all be
> >> in a @ world.
> >>
> >
> > The "@" ope
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
[...]
>> How about dropping python 2 support at the same time, then we can all be
>> in a @ world.
>>
>
> The "@" operator works with matrices already, what causes problems is the
> combination o
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:12 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
>>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Hi All,
>>
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
>> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
>>> oper
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 6:26 PM, wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
>>> operator is available and things
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 9:00 PM, Ralf Gommers wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris <
> charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
>> operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Pyth
On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Just throwing this click bait out for discussion. Now that the `@`
> operator is available and things seem to be moving towards Python 3,
> especially in the classroom, we should consider the real possibility of
> deprecating t
33 matches
Mail list logo