On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Charles R Harris >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Should also mention that we don't have the ability to operate on stacked >> > vectors because they can't be identified by dimension info. One >> workaround >> > is to add dummy dimensions where needed, another is to add two flags, >> row >> > and col, and set them appropriately. Two flags are needed for backward >> > compatibility, i.e., both false is a traditional array. >> >> It's possible I could be convinced to like this, but it would take a >> substantial amount of convincing :-). It seems like a pretty big >> violation of orthogonality/"one obvious way"/etc. to have two totally >> different ways of representing row/column vectors. >> >> > The '@' operator supports matrix stacks, so it would seem we also need to > support vector stacks. The new addition would only be effective with the > '@' operator. The main problem I see with flags is that adding them would > require an extensive audit of the C code to make sure they were preserved. > Another option, already supported to a large extent, is to have row and col > classes inheriting from ndarray that add nothing, except for a possible new > transpose type function/method. I did mock up such a class just for fun, > and also added a 'dyad' function. If we really don't care to support > stacked vectors we can get by without adding anything. > > Note that the '@' PEP is not compatible with current 'dot' for arrays with more than two dimensions and for scalars. Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
