Re: [Matplotlib-users] "from pylab import *" will no longer override min() and max()

[Todd M. <jm...@st...>]

Sorry Andrew.  I wasn't paying careful enough attention to what John was
saying and have a different idea of what numerix should evolve into:  a
simple numarray/Numeric switcher which provides "normalized" access to
the standard packages.  If multiple namespaces are combined,  that's OK
as long as we don't inject new behavior which defeats numerix's role as
a Numeric replacement.  In the general sense,  the purpose of numerix is
to make Numeric software available for numarray users.  Fairly soon I
think we're going to want to factor it out of matplotlib and use it in
other places.

I agree with John that numerix is not completely a simple switcher now, 
but I think that's where it needs to head.  Whatever short term solution
is chosen for min,max,etc... isn't that big a deal.

Regards,
Todd

On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 15:41, Andrew Straw wrote:
> OK, let's get this straight.  The situation as it stands:
> 
> Currently in CVS is an implementation such that "from pylab import *" 
> does not override builtins.  I think we all agree that this is the right 
> behavior. The question is now the implementation.  (The code I checked 
> in simply restores of pylab's names to the builtins. e.g. in the 
> pylab.py: "min = __builtin__.min")
> 
> John suggests moving my "solution" (I prefer to think of it as a 
> band-aid, curing the symptom, but not the cause) up the chain to 
> numerix, such that numerix.min = __builtin__.min (same for max, etc). 
> Additionally, he suggests bringing a few more names into existence such 
> that numerix.nxmin = mlab.min (same again for max, etc).  I have no 
> problem with this, but Todd "we should keep numerix compatible with 
> Numeric" Miller does, and I can see he has a valid point.  Thus, I see 
> no easy resolution which is of little consequence to those of us who do 
> not use numerix in our code.
> 
> Since I am personally quite busy with other stuff, and I don't see a 
> clear consensus of this numerix issue, which is secondary to my initial 
> gripe regarding pylab. I am disinclined to do anything more at this 
> point.  I will hereby let someone who cares more than I do about numerix 
> take it from here.
> 
> For the record, I agree with everyone that "from blah import *" is a bad 
> idea. However, pylab is special and thus deserves special attention. 
> Partly this is because John, Fernando, and others have spent many hours 
> making sure it plays well in IPython, resulting in IPython's pylab mode 
> being the best Python interactive scientific plotting solution. 
> Personally, I agree with Fernando's decision to do a "from pylab import 
> *" in ipython -pylab because it enables rapid, interactive data 
> exploration. (Besides which, it freakin' rocks!! :)
> 
> Given ipython -pylab is my most frequently used interactive Python, I 
> want min/max/etc to be the builtin functions (especially since I tend to 
> do "run -i blah.py" from IPython a lot, which thus inherit names, 
> including min and max, from ipython's interactive namespace).
>  
> Also, I am still intrigued by Norbert's suggestion to change Python 
> itself to eliminate this mess, but I don't have the time to deal with 
> it. Furthermore, even if someone did step up to the plate, this is a 
> longer term solution, and we'd still need a "band-aid" for the immediate 
> term.
> 
> Getting back to my day job now,
> Andrew