On 9 Apr 2014 12:34, "Robert Kern" <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2014-04-09 12:12, Nick Coghlan wrote: >> >> On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw <fn...@ncf.ca> wrote: >>> >>> Guido, >>> >>> I am sorry to read this. >>> >>> I shall be responding more completely in a day or two. >>> >>> In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are already >>> provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix. >>> >>> PEP 465 provides no clear indication as to how the standard operators fail. >> >> >> Note that numpy.matrix is specifically discussed in >> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/#rejected-alternatives-to-adding-a-new-operator >> (it's the first rejected alternative listed). > > > To be fair to Colin, the PEP asserts that the community at large would prefer an operator to the status quo but only alludes to the reason why it does so rather than explaining it fully. Personally, I think that's a reasonable allocation of Nathaniel's time, but then I happen to have agreed with the PEP's position before it was written, and I personally witnessed all of the history myself so I don't need it repeated back to me.
It could doubtless be clearer or signposted better, but the most explicit explanation of why the two type solution doesn't work is in the first section, search for "network effects". -n
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
