Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

Very funny !  Le 25 sept. 2015 07:53, "Alexander Eberspächer" a écrit : > On 24.09.2015 21:12, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > I find Cleve Moler's old Fortran version of Brent's zero finding > > algorithm using gotos clearer than the structured versions you can find

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

Hello. Can you give an example where GOTO is useful ? Le 24 sept. 2015 07:24, "Charles R Harris" a écrit : > At last, goto for python ! > > Usage: > > from goto import with_goto > > @with_goto > def range(start, stop): > i =

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

har...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Yarko Tymciurak <yark...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Alexander Eberspächer < >>> alex.eberspaec...@gmail.com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

By pseudo example, I mean pseudo code. Le 24 sept. 2015 20:56, "Christophe Bal" <projet...@gmail.com> a écrit : > To be honest, I am not very conviced. Does someone can give a pseudo > example ? > Le 24 sept. 2015 20:50, "Benjamin Root" <ben.v.r...@gmail.com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PEP 465 has been accepted / volunteers needed

Hello, I really think that add a new operator @ is not a good thing. Sorry I just want to make a joke... ;-) Christophe BAL 2014-04-10 15:11 GMT+02:00 josef.p...@gmail.com: On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Francesc Alted fal...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/9/14, 10:46 PM, Chris Barker wrote

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Resolving the associativity/precedence debate for @

, and I really think that would be the best way to manage products of matrices. The idea is fir example to see A@B@C@D as __atmul__(A, B, C, D). Christophe BAL ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

*About weak-left.* You need to define a priority of @ the matrix product regarding to * the elementwise product because (A*B)@C A*(B@C) : see the example above. I say that also from a mathematical point of view. Using mathematical like notations, Matrix1 * Matrix2 * 3 can be written because

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

+6b 10d+12c]* *[21a+24b 28d+32c]* 2014-03-18 16:29 GMT+01:00 Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Christophe Bal projet...@gmail.com wrote: About weak-left. You need to define a priority of @ the matrix product regarding to * the elementwise product because

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

When I write using mathematical like notations..., Matrix1 * Matrix2 is a matrix multiplication. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

Smith n...@pobox.com: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Christophe Bal projet...@gmail.com wrote: About weak-left. You need to define a priority of @ the matrix product regarding to * the elementwise product because (A*B)@C A*(B@C) This doesn't follow. (a / b) * c != a / (b * c

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

I think that there is very big misunderstanding. My point of view is both a mathematical and a programmagical one. Le 18 mars 2014 20:20, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com a écrit : On 18 Mar 2014 17:32, Christophe Bal projet...@gmail.com wrote: This is a different situation because / is indeed

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

so I realy think that is a better choice than the weak-right. Christophe BAL 2014-03-17 21:37 GMT+01:00 Russell E. Owen ro...@uw.edu: In article CAPJVwBkLww7-ysZB76LMRZ+mmbyN_5T=ym_vu1pjgakrlbq...@mail.gmail.com, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote: OPTION 1 FOR @: Precedence: same

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

Sorry for all the misspellings... 2014-03-17 22:32 GMT+01:00 Christophe Bal projet...@gmail.com: Hello, and what about something like that ? a @ b @ c - (a @ b) @ c a * b @ c - (a * b) @ c a @ b * c - a @ (b * c) Easy to remember. The *-product has priority to @-product

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

of this is that most parsers do analyze from left to right. So I really think that it is a better choice than the weak-right one. Christophe BAL 2014-03-17 22:34 GMT+01:00 Christophe Bal projet...@gmail.com: Sorry for all the misspellings... 2014-03-17 22:32 GMT+01:00 Christophe Bal projet

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

I think that weak-left is a little strange, just think a little of the operators used by mathematicians that always follow a hierarchy. A parser is mostly done using grammars : see http://docs.python.org/3.1/reference/grammar.html. Defining *-product to have stronger priority than the @-product,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

First of all I'm must be very tired because I've written *I think that weak-left is a little strange...* instead of *I think that same-left is a little strange...*. It is the night in french... ;-) So I'm definitely for the weak-left ! Here is my answer to Alexander Belopolsky. You are right

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

If you see the operators as following a hierarchy, the answer is simply yes. 2014-03-18 0:16 GMT+01:00 Bago mrb...@gmail.com: I'm now convinced of the usefulness of @ and @@ too but I also think that you must think of other uses than only for numpy. In other words, numpy is a the good

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

, I think at this point that the arrays-to-array operators must follows a hierarchy. Who is the guy who have asked such a complicated question about precedence ? :-) 2014-03-18 0:30 GMT+01:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com: On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Christophe Bal projet...@gmail.com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [RFC] should we argue for a matrix power operator, @@?

Hello. Maybe a solution would be to not see @ and @@ only from the matrix point of view. Why ? The philosophy of Python is to give total control of the infix operators +, * and ** for example via the magic methods. So it can be also the case for @ and @@ that could be use for something else that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

This id good for Numpyists but this will be another operator that good also help in another contexts. As a math user, I was first very skeptical but finally this is a good news for non Numpyists too. Christophe BAL Le 15 mars 2014 02:01, Frédéric Bastien no...@nouiz.org a écrit : This is great

[Numpy-discussion] SVG Logo of NumPy

Hello, is there a SVG version of the NumPy logo ? This would be to be used on my website. Christophe BAL ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] SVG Logo of NumPy

Sorry for my no-brain question. ;-) Thanks for the link. 2014-03-10 10:46 GMT+01:00 Pierre Haessig pierre.haes...@crans.org: Le 10/03/2014 10:38, Christophe Bal a écrit : is there a SVG version of the NumPy logo ? This would be to be used on my website. Could it be one of those https