On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:55 AM, Stéfan van der Walt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Joe, all > > On 10/04/2008, Joe Harrington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Absolutely. Let's please standardize on: > > > import numpy as np > > > import scipy as sp > > > > I hope we do NOT standardize on these abbreviations. While a few may > > have discussed it at a sprint, it hasn't seen broad discussion and > > there are reasons to prefer the other practice (numpy as N, scipy as > > S, pylab as P). > > "N" is a very unfortunate choice of abbreviation, given that so many > algorithms use it to indicate the number of elements in things. "np" > is much safer and, like Jarrod mentioned, also only takes two keys to > type. Sebastian, a simple regexp replace should fix your problem > (investment in hundreds of lines of N.* usage).
Hey! I use np *all the time* as an abbreviation for "number of points". I don't really see what the problem is with using numpy.whatever in library code and published scripts and whatever you want in one-off throw-away scripts. It's easy to setup a shortcut key in almost any editor to alleviate the typing burden, if that is the main objection. If you have a section of an algorithm that you are trying to make look as much like text-book pseudocode as possible, than you can't do better than "from numpy import whatever" both for clarity and python coding convention. You can also say "d = numpy.dot" in the local scope at the top of your algorithm so you can write "d(x,y)" in the algorithm itself for very pithy code that doesn't require a FAQ to understand. _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion