-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 9.6k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
DOC: note in h/v/dstack points users to stack/concatenate #7253
Conversation
@@ -184,6 +184,10 @@ def vstack(tup): | |||
Take a sequence of arrays and stack them vertically to make a single | |||
array. Rebuild arrays divided by `vsplit`. | |||
|
|||
This function continues to be supported for backward compatibility, but | |||
you should prefer ``np.concatenate`` or ``np.stack`` (keep in mind that | |||
``np.stack`` was added in numpy version 1.10). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How about a simple, unparnthesized,
The ``np.stack`` function was added in NumPy 1.10.
or maybe
or the ``np.stack`` function added in numpy 1.10.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@charris I like your first suggestion:
This function continues to be supported for backward compatibility, but
you should prefer ``np.concatenate`` or ``np.stack``. The ``np.stack``
function was added in NumPy 1.10.
For commits where the changes don't get tested, add |
Clever. I didn't see it anywhere in the dev workflow and I wasn't familiar with Travis' customization options. I'll remember it for a next time, thanks. |
DOC: note in h/v/dstack points users to stack/concatenate
Should we be doing the same for |
Warns users that they should be using
stack
andconcatenate
rather than the*stack
functions. Discussion at #5605 shows why using stack/concatenate should be preferred (in particular this comment).Also see the discussion at #7183, and previous PR #7191.
@shoyer something along these lines is what you had in mind, right? Please let me know if this is the correct location for this message (it could also be placed under Notes), and whether it is sufficiently explicit.