Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
pyPESTO namespace: flat or modularized?
See original GitHub issueCurrently, most functionality from pypesto.{optimize,sampling,profile} is put into the pypesto namespace. This makes things shorter to call, however can lead to confusion as the number of classes and functions in pypesto keeps growing. Alternatively, one could enforce calling it always as pypesto.{optimize,sampling,profile,visualization,...}.xyz (or maybe shortenings pypesto.{op,sa,pf,vi}.xyz). On the other hand, I would not expect that the modules offer similar functions which cannot go into one namespace. Opinions?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:6 (6 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
Ok. I think we won’t reach scipy level dependencies, but it may still be good to call things explicitly via the modules.
This would just necessitate that we change all notebooks (and thus the public API) to full paths as well. If no-one opposes, I suggest doing that for the next major release.
Voting for modular. pypesto already accumulated quite some dependencies, that will be imported everytime if we have it flat. I don’t want to wait a minute when i
import pypesto😃