On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Bruce Southey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles R Harris wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 7:43 AM, Travis Oliphant <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm having trouble emailing this list from work, so I'm using a > > different email address. > > > > After Nathan Bell's recent complaints, I'm a bit more > > uncomfortable with > > the matrix change to scalar indexing. It does and will break code > in > > possibly hard-to-track down ways. Also, Nathan has been a *huge* > > contributor to the Sparse matrix in scipy and so I value his opinion > > about the NumPy matrix. One of my goals is to have those two objects > > work together a bit more seamlessly. > > > > So, I think we need to: > > > > 1) Add a warning to scalar access > > 2) Back-out the change and fix all the places where NumPy assumes > > incorrectly that the number of dimensions reduce on > > PySequence_GetItem. > > > > > > -1. > > > > That said, the basic mistake is probably making Matrix a subclass of > > ndarray, as it fails the "is a" test. There really aren't that many > > places where inheritance is the right choice and numpy itself wasn't > > designed as a base class: it lacks a specification of what functions > > can be "virtual" and is probably too big. > > > > I vote that we bring Nathan into the conversation and see how upset he > > really is. Speaking for myself, I sometimes get angry upfront when > > specifications change unexpectedly underfoot but then settle down and > > find that it isn't all that bad. Being caught by surprise is probably > > half the problem. > > > > Chuck > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Numpy-discussion mailing list > > Numpy-discussion@scipy.org > > http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > Hi, > +1 > > The prime reason is not whether or not it is a bad/good idea but because > the actual change was introduced so late in the development of 1.0.5/1.1 > process. A lesser reason is that gives people like Nathan time to change > their code to match the pending release. Unfortunately the other problem > with this change is that any user now has to be careful of which NumPy > version is being used. The result is that backwards compatibility is now > broken in what was originally going to be a minor release. > Of course, if Nathan has already made the changes we will drive him crazy if we back them out now ;) I note that the thread on scipy ended pretty quickly, so I didn't get the impression there was a lot of resistance. Chuck
_______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
