| 10 Oct 2019 |
| 13:22:10 | |  rebecca changed their profile picture. |
| 18:23:43 | |  eteq changed their profile picture. |
| 12 Oct 2019 |
| 14:34:53 | |  timj changed their profile picture. |
| 16:41:16 | |  Bruno Merin changed their profile picture. |
| 13 Oct 2019 |
| 08:55:42 | |  Half-Shot changed their display name from Half-Shot to Half-Shot ✈️. |
| 18:55:50 | | Half-Shot changed their display name from Half-Shot ✈️ to Half-Shot. |
| 14 Oct 2019 |
| 18:13:01 |  bsipocz | I wonder how would people feel about keyword only arguments? I suppose it's already too late to switch for 4.0, but going forward I feel it would be rather nice to force many of our many optional arg/kwarg functions and classes to require keyword only. That would remove ambiguity and e.g. would let us structure the parameters in docstrings etc in a logical rather than a historical order. |
| 18:14:30 |  pllim | In reply to@slack_astropy_U76R9NRLP:openastronomy.org
I wonder how would people feel about keyword only arguments? I suppose it's already too late to switch for 4.0, but going forward I feel it would be rather nice to force many of our many optional arg/kwarg functions and classes to require keyword only. That would remove ambiguity and e.g. would let us structure the parameters in docstrings etc in a logical rather than a historical order. Might break a lot of stuff downstream. |
| 19:02:27 | | bsipocz changed their profile picture. |
| 19:02:27 | bsipocz | In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.org
Might break a lot of stuff downstream. but would also remove any ambiguity. I |
| 19:02:52 | bsipocz | Redacted or Malformed Event |
| 19:03:08 |  Cadair | In reply to @slack_astropy_U76R9NRLP:openastronomy.org
but would also remove any ambiguity. I'm not saying we should do it for everything neither that all at once, but it's a nice feature we can now support looks at SkyCoord |
| 19:03:16 | pllim | In reply to@cadair:cadair.com
looks at SkyCoord I would feel about it on a case by case basis. 😉 |
| 20:18:42 | |  kelle changed their profile picture. |
| 20:38:44 | |  Matt Craig changed their profile picture. |
| 20:49:39 | bsipocz | In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.org
I would feel about it on a case by case basis. 😉 Yes, skycoord is one, as is convolution, modelling or in fact any functions that already has tons (eg, >3-5) of optional kwargs. |
| 20:51:55 | pllim | In reply to@slack_astropy_U76R9NRLP:openastronomy.org
Yes, skycoord is one, as is convolution, modelling or in fact any functions that already has tons (eg, >3-5) of optional kwargs. Hmm... I dunno. I am okay with BlackBody(5000*u.K) but might be annoyed with BlackBody(temperature=5000*u.K). |
| 21:00:15 | |  nden changed their profile picture. |
| 21:27:23 | bsipocz | In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.org
Hmm... I dunno. I am okay with BlackBody(5000*u.K) but might be annoyed with BlackBody(temperature=5000*u.K). that's not the case I'm targetting. But, e.g Gaussian2D has 12 parameters. At least half of those (at minimum the ones listed as "Other" could be keyword only: https://docs.astropy.org/en/stable/api/astropy.modeling.functional_models.Gaussian2D.html) |
| 21:27:33 | bsipocz | In reply to@slack_astropy_U76R9NRLP:openastronomy.org
that's not the case I'm targetting. But, e.g Gaussian2D has 12 parameters. At least half of those (at minimum the ones listed as "Other" could be keyword only: https://docs.astropy.org/en/stable/api/astropy.modeling.functional_models.Gaussian2D.html) I'm not at all advocating for everything to be keyword only. |
| 21:29:47 | bsipocz | In reply to@slack_astropy_U76R9NRLP:openastronomy.org
I'm not at all advocating for everything to be keyword only. e.g. all the ones listed as "Other Parameters" for the models could be, but then for SkyCoord, or Table.read, etc. it would be even nicer |
| 21:32:37 | |  astrofrog changed their profile picture. |
| 21:32:38 | astrofrog | In reply to@slack_astropy_U76R9NRLP:openastronomy.org
e.g. all the ones listed as "Other Parameters" for the models could be, but then for SkyCoord, or Table.read, etc. it would be even nicer I'm all in favour of it when it makes sense |
| 21:56:39 | pllim | In reply to@slack_astropy_U07529085:openastronomy.org
I'm all in favour of it when it makes sense modeling just went throw one refactor and Perry just proposed the next round, so I would leave it out for now. |
| 21:57:00 | pllim | In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.org
modeling just went throw one refactor and Perry just proposed the next round, so I would leave it out for now. And let's leave fits and units alone. |
| 22:09:29 | astrofrog | In reply to@slack_astropy_U774ARTKR:openastronomy.org
And let's leave fits and units alone. I think we should definitely use them whenever appropriate for new features though |
| 22:48:32 | |  dberke changed their profile picture. |
| 22:54:27 | bsipocz | In reply to@slack_astropy_U07529085:openastronomy.org
I think we should definitely use them whenever appropriate for new features though well, if there is already a refactoring, then doing this in the same release actually makes all the sense. Otherwise I agree with leaving fits alone |
| 22:54:36 | bsipocz | Python 3.8.0 is released today: https://pythoninsider.blogspot.com/2019/10/python-380-is-now-available.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PythonInsider+%28Python+Insider%29 |
| 23:04:33 | |  tepickering changed their profile picture. |
