[SciPy-User] Pylab - standard packages

[Thomas Kluyver]

On 18 September 2012 23:44, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think I don't understand any more what is proposed.  You mean pylab
> would be a sort of seal of conformity to the "pylab" standard?  So you
> know you have pylab iff you have Python > .... etc?  Then
> distributions like EPD and Python XY would be pylab-certified in some
> sense?

I see my proposal as having three parts: the name, the website (which
newcomers find when they search for the name), and the standard, which
distributions like EPD and Python(x,y) will, I hope, conform to. These
distributions are then ways to install pylab - or a dedicated user can
install the pieces individually, and still end up with pylab. I'm not
trying to make a canonical scientific Python distribution - that's a
much bigger challenge.

> Is there a good reason not to include Ipython?

Perhaps other interfaces work better for some use cases, or some
individuals? Python(x,y) favours Spyder, for instance, and ships an
old version of IPython to maintain compatibility. If we included
IPython in the standard, Python(x,y) would probably not meet the
minimum specified version, and would not be Pylab compliant for the
time being.

With my IPython hat on, I hasten to add that we're working with Spyder
developers to improve things, so that hopefully a future version of
Python(x,y) can include an up-to-date version of IPython.

Thanks,
Thomas