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

ENH: start of patsy branch for discussion #260

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

ENH: start of patsy branch for discussion #260

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

sjsrey
Copy link
Member

@sjsrey sjsrey commented Mar 9, 2020

The justification for this PR is: to start a discussion and explore how to have a formula syntax across the library. This builds on the discussion in spreg with an eye towards what other packages in the library could benefit from this type of syntax.

@sjsrey sjsrey added the WIP Work in progress, do not merge. Discussion only. label Mar 9, 2020
@AppVeyorBot
Copy link

Build libpysal 1.0.50 completed (commit 5b43eff7da by @sjsrey)

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Mar 9, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #260 into master will not change coverage by %.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #260   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   80.96%   80.96%           
=======================================
  Files         116      116           
  Lines       11582    11582           
=======================================
  Hits         9377     9377           
  Misses       2205     2205           
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
libpysal/common.py 82.35% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 334716d...7b34a0d. Read the comment docs.

@knaaptime
Copy link
Member

knaaptime commented Feb 3, 2022

i'm returning to this issue as i'd like to start thinking about using mgwr simulation as an interpolation method over in tobler.

The critical piece is that patsy has now been succeeded by formulaic which seems both wonderfully fast and flexible. I haven't started testing it yet, but wanted to ping this issue again in case anyone was interested in hacking on this in the near future

cc @ljwolf @pedrovma @jGaboardi @TaylorOshan

@TaylorOshan
Copy link
Contributor

Looks interesting @knaaptime . Could be fodder for a GSOC project @tdhoffman ?

@knaaptime
Copy link
Member

would make a killer gsoc imo!

(also i accidentially tagged levi twice above instead of @darribas, so just @'ing him as well)

@tdhoffman
Copy link

I'm super interested in this for a GSoC project! @TaylorOshan and I have been tossing around something along these lines for a bit. Not sure how formulaic works, but I took a look at patsy at the time and it looked very dev-friendly. I think the real challenge of the project would be designing a library-wide semantics for the formulas, then the coding portion is just execution.

@knaaptime
Copy link
Member

sweet! I agree on your take @tdhoffman, looking forward to seeing how this comes together :)

@TaylorOshan
Copy link
Contributor

I do believe GSOC is on the docket for tomorrow's dev meeting @ 9am pacific, if you can make it @tdhoffman !

@tdhoffman
Copy link

I'll try to make it! I have a meeting from 8:30-9:30 pacific and at 10 pacific, so I'll hop on in the latter half

@martinfleis martinfleis changed the base branch from master to main February 27, 2023 08:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
WIP Work in progress, do not merge. Discussion only.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

10 participants