SciPy endorsement for SPEC-1

[tupui]

The discussion on SciPy's mailing list was opened here: https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/thread/46PKNGHVQKOKDECMIML7PZCHLKJUKBTA/

Lazy consensus applying, that means we are endorsing. I will send another email to SciPy's list with a week's additional RFC.

[rgommers]

LGTM, thanks Pamphile.

mixed up the different SPEC up for approval

[rgommers]

Sorry, I meant to approve SciPy's endorsement of SPECs 0 and 4 instead. For this one, I'd be a lot happier with approving it if it did either use scipy rather than sp or used another package instead. We just chatted about this, and @stefanv has also seen the review comments on the relevant SciPy PR. So please consider either of these options. The lazy import mechanism itself is great, and SciPy uses __getattr__ and __dir__, so from that perspective I'm 👍🏼 on endorsing this too.

[stefanv]

Thanks, Ralf. I agree that aliasing distracts from the SPEC 1 story, so I've filed #250 to remove any mentions of sp.

[bsipocz]

Thanks for removing the aliasing, that removes some explanation nightmares for those of us dealing with over-aliased user code.

[tupui]

I merged the PR, is everyone ok with moving this one?

[rgommers]

Good with me to merge this now, thanks all!

[tupui]

Great, thanks! Here we go then 🚀