[Numpy-discussion] defining a NumPy API standard?

[Chris Barker - NOAA Federal]

> Exactly. This is great, thanks Marten. I agree with pretty much everything in this list.

For my part, a few things immediately popped out at my that I disagree with. ;-)

Which does not mean it isn’t a useful exercise, but it does mean we
should expect a fair bit of debate.

But I do think we should be clear as to what the point is:

I think it could be helpful for clarifying for new and long standing
users of numpy what the “numpythonic” way to use numpy is.

I think this is very closely tied to the duck typing discussion.

But for guiding implementations of “numpy-like” libraries, not so
much: they are going to implement the features their users need —
whether it’s “officially” part of the numpy API is a minor concern.
Unless there is an official “Standard”, but it doesn’t sound like
anyone has that in mind.

I’m also a bit confused as to the scope: is this effort about the
python API only? In which case, I’m not sure how it relates to
libraries in/for other languages. Or only about those that provide a
Python binding?

When I first read the topic of this thread, I expected it to be about
the C API — it would be nice to clearly define what parts of the C API
are considered public and stable. (Though maybe that’s already done —
I do get numpy API deprecation warnings at times..)

-CHB