On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 12:26:49PM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote: > As Anne pointed out, examples are accumulating that there is > a *fundamental* problem with matrix handling of scalar > indexing. I agree with this. It is not just an > "annoyance". It keeps affecting code that tries to handle > both matrices and arrays in a generic way.
I don't care, personally. This is a problem. I agree with you. Breaking existing code is a major disturbance. It as to be weighted with the gains. The solution of adding another bug elsewhere to plug this problem is not good to me. This is why I favor the proposal #1 on your list of propsal http://www.scipy.org/MatrixIndexing , because it introduces the minimal amount of changes to the interfaces. > Your phrasing suggests that the only solution is to live > with this forever, always cobbling new workarounds, unless > backward compatability can be ensured for more sensible > behavior, which it pretty clearly cannot. Is that your > current stance? No, but I am pretty close to this. > I suspect part of the problem is that "backward > compatability" is being interpreted in terms of discoverable > behavior, rather than in terms of documented behavior. Not at all. It is to be interpreted in terms of "I have a few dozens kilolines of code left by a student who work with numpy 1.0, if I upgrade numpy, will they still work?". I do realize the limits of freezing the behavior of software: bugware. I am not for a complete freeze, I am for a very well-thought move forward, that introduces a minimum of breakage. Gaël _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
