On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 03/20/2014 02:26 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> I'm positive to the chained @ idea, I think it's the answer to "what we >> really want". > > Sorry, I totally misunderstood this. The question is of course how you > dispatch technically (where the __matmul__ function lives and which one > to use), not figuring out what you want done. > > I think you'd need to keep this very simple; for instance, just require > the leftmost matrix to implement __matmul__ that takes a list, ditch > __rmatmul__, and then solve the rest on the library level. > > In our case, everyone would delegate __matmul__ to something in NumPy > that then supports hooks and solves this on the library level. That > would work as I say above + hooks to plug in cost estimators and compute > functions for various matrix products. To me, that signals that it's time to drop the operator for a library of functions, just like I prefer solve() and company to a matrix division operator. -- Robert Kern _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
