Closed HumphreyYang closed 9 months ago
🚀 Deployed on https://657937bd6664cd4eaa54bbe3--epic-agnesi-957267.netlify.app
Hi @mmcky,
Could you please have a first pass on this?
Many thanks in advance.
@HumphreyYang thanks for putting this together. This looks like a good change to me.
I wonder if using @jit(nopython=True)
would be useful to show instead of @njit
as we will plan to swap back to using the simpler @jit
directive once the deprecation has been made in a later release.
Also can you please create and link the switch back to @jit
issue.
Thank you.
@HumphreyYang thanks for putting this together. This looks like a good change to me.
I wonder if using
@jit(nopython=True)
would be useful to show instead of@njit
as we will plan to swap back to using the simpler@jit
directive once the deprecation has been made in a later release.Also can you please create and link the
switch back to @jit
issue.Thank you.
Hi @mmcky,
From the roadmap, I think Numba developers want to push people away from @jit(nopython=False)
. If that is the case, I think @njit
is more compact. Maybe we should ask @jstac for his opinion?
Also can you please create and link the
switch back to @jit
issue.
It has been created in the meta
repository here as it might involve more than one lecture.
Many thanks in advance.
Best, Humphrey
Thanks @HumphreyYang and @mmcky . I'm indifferent between the two options, since we'll be changing both to @jit soon anyway.
thanks @HumphreyYang -- that linked issue is useful so I have added it to the top level description.
Do you know if njit
is going to persist once the @jit
decorator moves to default nopython=True
mode?
thanks @HumphreyYang -- that linked issue is useful so I have added it to the top level description.
Do you know if
njit
is going to persist once the@jit
decorator moves to defaultnopython=True
mode?
Many thanks @mmcky,
I checked their documentation, but I did not find anything about the deprecation of njit
. There is no deprecation warning when using njit
at the moment. Therefore, I think it is not going to be removed.
Thanks @HumphreyYang , looking good.
@mmcky Could you please give this a careful proofread and then merge when ready? I flagged a couple of small things above.
Many thanks @jstac and @mmcky ,
The typo is introduced when I modify the text according to @mmcky's feedback. I will be more careful when deleting content. I also found another typo in the original text : )
@mmcky, would you mind having another review and merge if it looks good?
Many thanks in advance.
This PR resolves #294.
Future actions are held in https://github.com/QuantEcon/meta/issues/112