Nick Coghlan wrote: > I think it more comes from the n-dimensional array approach - 'n=0' is > then a natural issue to consider.
But only if it makes sense. I still think there are some severe conceptual difficulties with 0D arrays. One is the question of how many items it contains. With 1 or more dimensions, you can talk about its size along any chosen dimension. But with 0 dimensions there's no size to measure. Who's to say a 0D array has a size of 1, then? Part of my brain keeps saying it should be 0 -- i.e. it contains nothing at all! Also, what kind of thing does a[] yield? Do we finally, at last, get an actual scalar, or do we get a -1 dimensional array? :-) I'm having trouble seeing a real use for a 0D array as something distinct from a scalar, as opposed to them just being an oddity that happens to arise as a side effect of the way Numeric/Numpy are implemented. -- Greg _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
