On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked > > vectors because they can't be identified by dimension info. One > workaround > > is to add dummy dimensions where needed, another is to add two flags, row > > and col, and set them appropriately. Two flags are needed for backward > > compatibility, i.e., both false is a traditional array. > > It's possible I could be convinced to like this, but it would take a > substantial amount of convincing :-). It seems like a pretty big > violation of orthogonality/"one obvious way"/etc. to have two totally > different ways of representing row/column vectors. > > The '@' operator supports matrix stacks, so it would seem we also need to support vector stacks. The new addition would only be effective with the '@' operator. The main problem I see with flags is that adding them would require an extensive audit of the C code to make sure they were preserved. Another option, already supported to a large extent, is to have row and col classes inheriting from ndarray that add nothing, except for a possible new transpose type function/method. I did mock up such a class just for fun, and also added a 'dyad' function. If we really don't care to support stacked vectors we can get by without adding anything. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
