Cesare Di Mauro wrote:
Nick Coghlan write:
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
Dear Raymond,
Thank you for your email.
I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
that were held for PEP 225:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
bring it back to life.
This is a much better PEP than the one I had found, and would solve
all of the numpy problems. The PEP is very well thought-out.
A very interesting read! I wouldn't support some of the more exotic
elements tacked on to the end (particularly the replacement of the now
thoroughly entrenched bitwise operators), but the basic idea of
providing ~op variants of several operators seems fairly sound. I'd be
somewhat inclined to add ~not, ~and and ~or to the list even though
that would pretty much force the semantics to be elementwise for the ~
variants (since the standard not, and and or are always objectwise and
without PEP 335 there's no way for an object to change that).
Cheers,
Nick.
I agree: adding ~op will be very interesting.
As interesting as I may have found it though, further discussion of the
prospect of resurrecting it for consideration in the 2.7/3.1 timeframe
should really take place on python-ideas.
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.boredomandlaziness.org
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
