make more explicit that verbose_feature_names is not required

scikit-learn / enhancement_proposals

Enhancement proposals for scikit-learn: structured discussions and rational for large additions and modifications

https://scikit-learn-enhancement-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest

BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License

48 stars 34 forks source link

make more explicit that verbose_feature_names is not required #38

Closed amueller closed 4 years ago

amueller commented 4 years ago

Addressing my concern in #32, this rephrases the verbose_feature_names to be an optional extension.

amueller commented 4 years ago

I moved all mentions of verbose_feature_names to extensions and defined the behavior without it for all cases. I think it's important that the SLEP contains enough information so it can actually be implemented without a lot of further discussion.

adrinjalali commented 4 years ago

@NicolasHug WDYT?

adrinjalali commented 4 years ago

I think these PRs could be merged with only 1 approval, especially if the approval comes from the "SLEP champion".

I agree, but I still wanted to know what you think first :)