Skip to content
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

add ipython-jl #269

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

add ipython-jl #269

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

marius311
Copy link
Contributor

Seemed a more seamless experience for Pythonistas.

@tkf
Copy link
Member

tkf commented Apr 5, 2019

I appreciate your interest for improving PyJulia. But I'd like to minimize the interface related to python-jl as there would be better ways to support PyJulia in wider range of Python installations (see also #268 (comment)). I hope you are not discouraged because I'm closing this.

@tkf tkf closed this Apr 5, 2019
@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 662

  • 1 of 4 (25.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • 2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-1.1%) to 76.039%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/julia/python_jl.py 1 4 25.0%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
src/julia/find_libpython.py 2 71.88%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 652: -1.1%
Covered Lines: 933
Relevant Lines: 1227

💛 - Coveralls

2 similar comments
@coveralls
Copy link

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 662

  • 1 of 4 (25.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • 2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-1.1%) to 76.039%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/julia/python_jl.py 1 4 25.0%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
src/julia/find_libpython.py 2 71.88%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 652: -1.1%
Covered Lines: 933
Relevant Lines: 1227

💛 - Coveralls

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 5, 2019

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 662

  • 1 of 4 (25.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • 2 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-1.1%) to 76.039%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
src/julia/python_jl.py 1 4 25.0%
Files with Coverage Reduction New Missed Lines %
src/julia/find_libpython.py 2 71.88%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 652: -1.1%
Covered Lines: 933
Relevant Lines: 1227

💛 - Coveralls

@tkf
Copy link
Member

tkf commented Apr 5, 2019

BTW, checkout https://github.com/tkf/IPython.jl if you want a "better" version python-jl -m IPython. I think it's strictly better than IPython for using PyJulia because you have access to both IPython and Julia REPL (plus some event loop coordination).

@marius311
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks, appreciate the thoughtful response. You brought up good points about the Jupyter kernel, will reply in that issue, but here I really think you should reconsider. I totally agree python-jl should go away as soon as it can, but currently it does have to exist so why not just make things slightly more userfriendly where we can? Its not as if this is some API that will be hard to deprecate later, its just what people type to launch an interpreter.

@tkf
Copy link
Member

tkf commented Apr 5, 2019

I'm very close to implementing an "ultimate solution" #256. Basically, the blockers are dropping Julia 0.6 support (which in turn is blocked by PyJulia 0.3 release) and new PyCall release. Once this is implemented, the information related to ipython-jl would be harmful as it would misguide users. The reason why I said I'll not get rid of python-jl very soon was not because python-jl will still be a valid solution but because to keep backward compatibility for a while.

Due to the limited resource in development, we need to focus on good solutions. python-jl is not a good solution because it is impossible to make it right. There is no guarantee that the Python environment that python-jl is installed in and the Python environment active inside python-jl session are the same. This would be extremely confusing for people who are not familiar with how Python imports work.

@marius311
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ok fair enough, I didn't realize the ultimate solution was so close. Looking forward to that!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants