Perry Greenfield 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).
I think a stronger general numpy case might be made for the logical operators than for matrix multiplication. An alternative approach, and I think preferable to introducing new logical operators, is PEP 335: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0335/. It is still on the "under consideration" list, but it has been there since 2004. Perhaps it needs a strong push? Eric > > Perry > > _______________________________________________ > Numpy-discussion mailing list > Numpy-discussion@scipy.org > http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
