On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 10:24 PM Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The main motivation for the @ PEP was actually to be able to get rid of >> objects like np.matrix and scipy.sparse matrices that redefine the meaning >> of the * operator. Quote: "This PEP proposes the minimum effective change >> to Python syntax that will allow us to drain this swamp [meaning np.matrix >> & co]." >> >> Notably, the @ PEP was written by Nathaniel, who was opposed to a copying >> .H. >> > > I should note that my comment invoking the history of @ was about the > regular transpose, .mT. The executive summary of the PEP includes the > following relevant sentence: > """ > Currently, most numerical Python code uses * for elementwise > multiplication, and function/method syntax for matrix multiplication; > however, this leads to ugly and unreadable code in common circumstances. > """ > > Exactly the same holds for matrix transpose, and indeed for many matrix > expressions the gain in readability is lost without a clean option to do > the transpose. > Yes, but that's not at all equivalent. The point for @ was that you cannot just create your own operator in Python. Therefore there really is no alternative to a builtin operator. For methods however, there's nothing stopping you from building a well-designed matrix class. You can then add all the new properties that you want. Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
