> The problem is that ``x[0]`` being 2d has produced a variety > of anomalies, and the natural fix is for ``x[0]`` to be 1d. > > Gael has argued strongly that she should be able to use the > following notation: ``x[0,:]*A*x[:,0]``. But this will work > only if ``x[0,:]`` is 2d or if it is 1d but has an "orientation". > > So *if* you think ``x[0] == x[0,:]`` is desirable, *and* you > want to satisfy Gael, *then* it seems you must introduce 1d > "oriented" vectors. > > I believe Travis is also suggesting that we travel that > road, taking a first step as follows: > for now let ``x[0]`` be a 1d array to quickly fix the > anomalies, but let ``x[0,:]`` continue to be a matrix > until the vector code is written, at which point ``x[0]`` > and ``x[0,:]`` we be the same "row vector". > > Or so I have understood things. > You've characterized my current thinking pretty well. I'm less concerned that x[0] != x[0,:] than I think Gael is.
-Travis _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
