On 16/03/2014 01:31, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Warren Weckesser
warren.weckes...@gmail.com mailto:warren.weckes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com
mailto:josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Fernando Perez fperez@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Aron Ahmadia a...@ahmadia.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
The thread so far, it sounds like the consensus answer is meh,
whatever.
Personally I did not like @@ in the first place.
Sturla
Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written proposes
two new operators, @ for matrix multiplication
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
For this discussion let's assume @ can be taken for granted, and that
we can freely choose to either add @@ or not add @@ to the language.
The question is: which do we think makes Python a better language (for
us and in
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
For this discussion let's assume @ can be taken for granted, and that
we can freely choose to either add @@ or not add @@ to the language.
The question
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
The thread so far, it sounds like the consensus answer is meh,
whatever. So I'm thinking we should just drop @@ from the PEP, and if
it turns out that this is a problem we can always revisit it in the
~3.6/3.7 timeframe.
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Aron Ahmadia a...@ahmadia.net wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
The thread so far, it sounds like the consensus answer is meh,
whatever. So I'm thinking we should just drop @@ from the PEP, and if
it turns out
On 3/15/2014 10:12 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
So to be clear, even if numpy.matrix is going away, and even if
ndarray isn't getting a .I attribute, then you're just as happy
typing/teaching inv(X) as X @@ -1?
Yes, that is correct.
I am somewhat more unhappy with having to use
Le samedi 15 mars 2014 à 04:32 +, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written proposes
two new operators, @ for matrix multiplication and @@ for matrix power
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
On 3/15/2014 12:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
I know you were worried
about losing the .I attribute on matrices if switching to ndarrays for
teaching -- given that ndarray will probably not get a .I attribute,
how much would the existence of @@ -1 affect you?
Not much. Positive integer
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written proposes
two new operators, @ for matrix multiplication and @@ for matrix power
2014-03-15 11:18 GMT-04:00 Charles R Harris charlesr.har...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written
Speaking only for myself (and as someone who has regularly used matrix
powers), I would not expect matrix power as @@ to follow from matrix
multiplication as @. I do agree that matrix power is the only reasonable
use for @@ (given @), but it's still not something I would be confident
enough to
I think I wouldn't use anything like @@ often enough to remember it's
meaning. I'd rather see english names for anything that is not **very**
common.
I find A@@-1 pretty ugly compared to inv(A)
A@@(-0.5) might be nice (do we have matrix_sqrt ?)
Josef
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Stephan
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I wouldn't use anything like @@ often enough to remember it's
meaning. I'd rather see english names for anything that is not **very**
common.
I find A@@-1 pretty ugly compared to inv(A)
A@@(-0.5) might be nice (do we
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Warren Weckesser
warren.weckes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 8:38 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
I think I wouldn't use anything like @@ often enough to remember it's
meaning. I'd rather see english names for anything that is not **very**
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/15/2014 12:32 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
I know you were worried
about losing the .I attribute on matrices if switching to ndarrays for
teaching -- given that ndarray will probably not get a .I attribute,
how
Hi all,
Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about
PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written proposes
two new operators, @ for matrix multiplication and @@ for matrix power
(analogous to * and **):
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
The
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 9:32 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
Here are the interesting use cases for @@ that I can think of:
- 'vector @@ 2' gives the squared Euclidean length (because it's the
same as vector @ vector). Kind of handy.
- 'matrix @@ n' of course gives the matrix
20 matches
Mail list logo
