On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Ian Henriksen > <insertinterestingnameh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Here's another example that I've seen catch people now and again. >> >> A = np.random.rand(100, 100) >> b = np.random.rand(10) >> A * b.T > > > typo? that was supposed to be > > b = np.random.rand(100). yes? > > This is exactly what someone else referred to as the expectations of someone > that comes from MATLAB, and doesn't yet "get" that 1D arrays are 1D arrays. > > All of this is EXACTLY the motivation for the matric class -- which never > took off, and was never complete (it needed a row and column vector > implementation, if you ask me. But Ithikn the reason it didn't take off is > that it really isn't that useful, but is different enough from regular > arrays to be a greater source of confusion. And it was decided that all > people REALLY wanted was an obviou sway to get matric multiply, which we now > have with @. > > So this discussion brings up that we also need an easy an obvious way to > make a column vector -- > > maybe: > > np.col_vector(arr) > > which would be a synonym for np.reshape(arr, (-1,1))
Yes, I was going to suggest `colvec` and `rowvec`. Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
