On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 16:24, Perry Greenfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 22, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Robert Kern wrote: >> >> I would add another position (my own) to the "Arguments neutral >> towards or against the PEP": >> >> * I really only care about having just *one* extra operator, one that >> I can (ab)use for matrix multiplication. It's the only operation that >> is common enough and with one obvious implementation (I'm looking at >> you, Matlab's "\") to warrant it, IMO. Doubling the number of >> operators and special methods is not a price that I'm willing to pay >> to get it, though. >> > Note that although some of the proposals allow for a doubling of the > number of possible operators, numpy doesn't have to use them all and > thus doesn't need to double the number of special methods. I'd agree > that only a few are really necessary (to matrix multiply I'd add the > logical operators as well).
It doesn't double the number of special methods that numpy uses, but it does double the number of special methods defined in the language. *That's* what I'm worried about. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion