On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 07/23/2013 07:53 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> I'm trying to understand the state of this discussion. >> I believe that propoents of adding a .H attribute have >> primarily emphasized >> >> - readability (and general ease of use) >> - consistency with matrix and masked array >> - forward looking (to a future when .H can be a view) > > I disagree with this being forward looking, as it explicitly creates a > situation where code will break if .H becomes a view, e.g.: > > xh = x.H > x *= 2 > assert np.all(2 * xh == x.H) > >> >> The opponents have primarily emphasized >> >> - inconsistency with convention that for arrays >> instance attributes should return views > > I'd formulate this as simply "inconsistency with .T"; they are both > motivated primarily as notational shorthands.
Do we really need a one letter shorthand for `a.conj().T` ? I don't. Josef (The one who wrote np.max(np.abs(y - x)) and np.max(np.abs(y / x - 1)) 30 or more times in the last 24 hours, in pdb.) > > Dag Sverre > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
