On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alan G Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aside from "more operators needed", is there a consensus > view among the developers?
I don't think so, but given that pep 225 exists and is fully fleshed out, I guess it should be considered the starting point of the discussion for reference. This doesn't mean that modifications to it can't be suggested, but that I'm assuming python-dev will want that as the reference point. For something as big as this, they would definitely want to work off a real pep. Having said that, I think all ideas are fair game at this point. I personally would like to see it happen, but if not I'd like to see a final pronouncement on the matter rather than seeing pep 225 deferred forever. > Taking a user's perspective, I see a short run and a long > run. > > SR: I am very comfortable with adding dot versions of operators. > I am not worried about reversing the Matlab/GAUSS meanings, > but if others are very worried, we could append the dot > instead of prepending it. > > LR: It would be great to use unicode math operators. > On this issue, Fortress is being foresightful. > Accepting the "times" symbol would be a fairly small move > for most users, since it is in the Latin 1 extension of > ASCII. I'll be sure to list this as part of the received feedback. I'm personally not too crazy about unicode operators (at least not to the extent that Fortress went, where basically a special IDE would be required to write the code in any reasonable scenario). But I'm willing to change my mind, and I'm *definitely* acting as scribe here, so everything that is presented will be reported back. As we get more info I'll start a summary document, which will then be completed with 'live' feedback from the session at scipy next week. Thanks! Cheers, f _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list [email protected] http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
