On 25-Mar-2014 1:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:58:57 -0600 From: Charles R
Harris <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion]
Resolving the associativity/precedence debate for @ To: Discussion of
Numerical Python <[email protected]> Message-ID:
<cab6mnxlyjna5bhgoho+u8+p3umvxdjgg+zuqfwi+vjfhfos...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at
5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith<[email protected]> wrote:
> >After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> >[1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> >if we want @ to exist:-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> >stands and let's see if we can find some way to resolve this.
>
>Response in this thread so far seems (AFAICT) to have pretty much
>converged on same-left.
>
>If you think that this would be terrible and there is some compelling
>argument against it, then please speak up! Otherwise, if no-one
>objects, then I'll go ahead in the next few days and put same-left
>into the PEP.
>
I think we should take a close look at broadcasting before deciding on the
precedence.
Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20140324/626e79be/attachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Perhaps a closer look at np.matrix is needed too. There has been no
close exploration of the weaknesses perceived by Nathan in the Matrix
class. Are any of these of substance? If so, what corrections would be
needed?
Would implementation of those changes be done readily.
I would like to see a Vector class, as a specialization of Matrix.
These would avoid the use of an additional operator which would only be
used with numpy.
Colin W.
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
