[SciPy-Dev] Backwards Compatibility for low level LAPACK routines

[Pauli Virtanen]

la, 2018-08-04 kello 06:06 -0700, Ralf Gommers kirjoitti:
[clip]
> Ah okay. Then the alternative is to just leave the work parameter,
> ignore
> it in the code if it's passed in (or give a warning/error) and
> document it
> as not being used. Right?
> 
> If you're removing "work" from both the signature and the return
> value,
> that's a bigger change indeed, that can't be handled well that way.
> I'm not
> 100% sure, but I think I agree that a backwards incompatible change
> here
> will be better than introducing a bunch of new functions with worse
> names.
> 
> We could introduce a Python wrapper for these to give a proper
> FutureWarning first.

Or, perhaps you can leave the `work` return variable in, but make it an
1-element array? Its value can be filled in from the `callstatement`,
cf eg 
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/scipy/linalg/flapack_gen.pyf.src#L89
The actual work array is then made an intent(hide,cache) variable.

	Pauli