On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Travis E. Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
I hope that changing x[0,:] is considered a major change since it will break most any package based on matrices (mine). And so I hope that such a change wouldn't show up, if at all, until 2.0. _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
