Hello.
Maybe a solution would be to not see @ and @@ only from the matrix point of
view.
Why ? The philosophy of Python is to give total control of the infix
operators +, * and ** for example via the magic methods. So it can be also
the case for @ and @@ that could be use for something else
that
I tend to favor tight-right. The general scheme of precedence more or
less puts heavier operations higher than lighter operations (+ *
**) and @ is heavier than * in my mind. I think tight (either
-right or -left) has a good correspondence with current dot()
expressions, so it will make
hi all,
I'm glad to inform you about new OpenOpt Suite release 0.53:
Stochastic programming addon now is available for free
Some minor changes
--
Regards, D.
http://openopt.org/Dmitrey
___
On 3/15/2014 12:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
I know you were worried
about losing the .I attribute on matrices if switching to ndarrays for
teaching -- given that ndarray will probably not get a .I attribute,
how much would the existence of @@ -1 affect you?
Not much. Positive integer
I favor the weak right option.
1) Giving '*' higher precedence than `@` makes it easier, to my mind, to
parse out what is going to happen: all the element-wise multiplications,
followed by the matrix operations. I'd probably still use parenthesis for
clarity.
2) Right associative has the
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Well, that was fast. Guido says he'll accept the addition of '@' as an
infix operator for matrix multiplication, once some details are ironed
out:
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2014-March/027109.html
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written proposes
two new operators, @ for matrix multiplication and @@ for matrix power
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I favor the weak right option.
1) Giving '*' higher precedence than `@` makes it easier, to my mind, to
parse out what is going to happen: all the element-wise multiplications,
followed by the matrix
2014-03-15 11:18 GMT-04:00 Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to favor tight-right. The general scheme of precedence more or
less puts heavier operations higher than lighter operations (+ *
**) and @ is heavier than * in my mind. I think tight (either
-right or -left) has
Because of the license problem, I think I will choose Yeppp as a default
backend.
And if time allows, maybe I can implement other bindings. (Vc library)
Also I found that sleef library is in public domain. But it seems that it
only provides fast math function,
not vectorized math function. So I
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I favor the weak right option.
1) Giving '*' higher precedence than `@` makes it easier, to my mind, to
parse out what is going
Oops, make that '*' is *left* associative.
snip
Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
I favor the weak right option.
1) Giving '*'
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@' to
Python: we need to decide what we think its precedence and associativity
should be.
I am not ready to form my own opinion, but I hope the following
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@' to Python:
we need to decide what we think its precedence and associativity should be.
Another data point that might be useful:
Matlab: same-left
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@' to
Python:
we need to decide what we think its precedence and
Hi Chris,
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:15 AM, Chris Laumann chris.laum...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Let me preface my two cents by saying that I think the best part of @ being
accepted is the potential for deprecating the matrix class — the syntactic
beauty of infix for matrix multiply is a nice
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Joe Kington joferking...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@' to
Python: we need to decide what we think its precedence and associativity
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Joe Kington joferking...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.comwrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.comwrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@'
On 15 Mar 2014 19:02, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to throw something new into the mix
u@v@w = u@(v@w) -- u@v is a dyadic matrix
u@v -- is a scalar
It would be nice if u@v@None, or some such, would evaluate as a dyad. Or
else we will still need the concept of row
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
It would be nice if u@v@None, or some such, would evaluate as a dyad.
Or else we will still need the concept of row and column 1-D matrices. I
still think v.T should set a flag so that one can distinguish u@v.T(dyad)
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On 15 Mar 2014 19:02, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just to throw something new into the mix
u@v@w = u@(v@w) -- u@v is a dyadic matrix
u@v -- is a scalar
It would be nice if u@v@None, or
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com
wrote:
These days they are usually written as v*w.T, i.e., the outer product of
two vectors and are a fairly common occurrence in matrix expressions. For
instance, covariance matrices are defined as E(v * v.T)
With
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Alexander Belopolsky ndar...@mac.comwrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
These days they are usually written as v*w.T, i.e., the outer product of
two vectors and are a fairly common occurrence in matrix
Speaking only for myself (and as someone who has regularly used matrix
powers), I would not expect matrix power as @@ to follow from matrix
multiplication as @. I do agree that matrix power is the only reasonable
use for @@ (given @), but it's still not something I would be confident
enough to
I think I wouldn't use anything like @@ often enough to remember it's
meaning. I'd rather see english names for anything that is not **very**
common.
I find A@@-1 pretty ugly compared to inv(A)
A@@(-0.5) might be nice (do we have matrix_sqrt ?)
Josef
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Stephan
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I wouldn't use anything like @@ often enough to remember it's
meaning. I'd rather see english names for anything that is not **very**
common.
I find A@@-1 pretty ugly compared to inv(A)
A@@(-0.5) might be nice (do we
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@' to
Python: we need to decide what we think its precedence and associativity
should be. I'll explain what that means so we're on the same page, and
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Warren Weckesser
warren.weckes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I wouldn't use anything like @@ often enough to remember it's
meaning. I'd rather see english names for anything that is not **very**
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/2014 12:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
I know you were worried
about losing the .I attribute on matrices if switching to ndarrays for
teaching -- given that ndarray will probably not get a .I attribute,
how
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:20 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply operator '@' to
Python: we need to decide what we think its precedence and associativity
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:20 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the main blocker for adding a matrix multiply
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 10:53 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 7:20 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 11:41 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
36 matches
Mail list logo
