On 5/11/2015 3:52 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Not sure what you mean. It's true that PEP 465 doesn't say anything about > np.dot, because it's out of scope. The argument here, though, is not "PEP > 465 says we have to do this". It's that it's confusing to have two different > subtly different sets of semantics, and the PEP semantics are better > (that's why we chose them), so we should at a minimum warn people who are > getting the old behavior
I would have to dig around, but I am pretty sure there were explicit statements that `@` would neither be bound by the behavior of `dot` nor expected to be reconciled with it. I agree that where `@` and `dot` differ in behavior, this should be clearly documented. I would hope that the behavior of `dot` would not change. Alan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
