2015-08-22 13:40:51 UTC+2, Johan S. R. Nielsen:
>
>
> About the naming of the copying form versus in-place form,
note that matrices currently have e.g. echelon_form/echelonize
and hessenberg_form/hessenbergize. Standardisation would
> dictate echeloned or echelon_formed?
>
Maybe echelonize/ech
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, Volker Braun wrote:
What would be the benefit over
M2 = M**2
M2.set_immutable()
other than a more cumbersome syntax that requires you to look up the
__mul__ docstring to use it?
Speed? I don't know, this is a real question.
I just thinked about difference between mat
On Monday, August 24, 2015 at 2:51:46 AM UTC-4, Jori Mäntysalo wrote:
>
> For example if M is an immutable matrix, would it give more speed to have
> something like M.__mul__(M, immutable=True)?
What would be the benefit over
M2 = M**2
M2.set_immutable()
other than a more cumbersome syntax t
Is there a convention for functions returning larger objects?
For example if M is an immutable matrix, would it give more speed to have
something like M.__mul__(M, immutable=True)?
--
Jori Mäntysalo
Basically +1 for Volker's suggestion. Vincent's suggestion on the
semantics of "copy" in constructors seem very dangerous: even if my
construction of MyNewObject works today, a seemingly unrelated change to
either the caller code or MyNewObject tomorrow could completely break
things in highly surpr
IMHO both foo(copy=True) and foo(inplace=False) are fugly and best avoided.
They are unintuitive and not discoverable. Basically they are patterns for
an API that you can only use by constantly looking up the documentation.
If possible, methods should act in-place since that is the most versati
Hello Vincent,
I do actually prefer to keep both with different semantics (so I guess
it is answer 5.).
- "inplace" should be used when the object is being modified within a
method (i.e. G.cut_me_in_pieces(inplace=True) will modify G)
- "copy" should be used when we want to specify whether
