Hi all,
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.
The fundamental
On 2014/03/22 8:13 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
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
Hi Nate,
Many thanks first for the efforts you put in this.
I'm not a computer scientist, but will give my opinion as physicist.
As such, when I see A x B x C (A, B and C being matrices), I tend to read it
from right to
left : Ax (BxC).
But if the size of the matrices do not match like this,
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
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
Hi,
On 22 March 2014 19:13, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
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
Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, I this point I think we might as well go with left associativity.
Most of the operator uses looked to involve a single `@`, where it doesn't
matter, and the others were short where adding a couple of parenthesis
wouldn't mess things up
Hi All,
It is time to start looking forward to the 1.9.0 release. Currently there
are some 76 open PRs and they keep rolling in, which is good, but we need
to decide on what is important for 1.9 and what can be put off to 1.10
because otherwise we will never finish. The datetime problems and some
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
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
Hi All,
It is time for the 1.8.1 release to go forward. I'm on the fence as to
whether to do an rc2 or just release and do a 1.8.2 if needed. The problems
noted with the 1.8.1rc1 should be fixed, but if you are in a position to
test the current 1.8.x branch, please give it a try.
Chuck
Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
- There might be some speed argument, if people often write things
like Mat @ Mat @ vec? But no-one has found any evidence that people
actually do write such things often.
With left associativity, this would be an algorithmic optimization:
Mat @ (Mat
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com
wrote:
On the other hand, this
vec.T @ Mat @ Mat
would not need parentheses for optimisation when the associativity is
left.
Nor does it require .T if vec is 1d.
By the way, the * operator for np.matrix and
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Christoph Gohlke cgoh...@uci.edu wrote:
On 3/22/2014 7:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
Hi All,
It is time for the 1.8.1 release to go forward. I'm on the fence as to
whether to do an rc2 or just release and do a 1.8.2 if needed. The
problems noted with
12 matches
Mail list logo
