Hello,
I am interest both in numarray type multiplication and matrix type
multiplication.
But I am not shure that I can buy an Unicode keyboard.
May be it would be possible to implement a class with
user definissable (?) signs.
My choice :
a * b - numarray type multi
a !* b - matrix
--
The unicode keyboards sailing everywhere is just a matter of time
And python 2-symbol operators soon will look obsolete, this will
increase migrating from python to Sun fortress etc. I took a look at
their unicode syntax for math formulas
http://research.sun.com/projects/plrg/faq/NAS-CG.pdf
it
Hi folks,
Sorry to rain on this parade, but unicode variable names and/or other
syntactic elements have already been rejected for Python 3:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/
Python 3000 source code won't use non-ASCII Unicode characters for
anything except string literals or
Zachary Pincus wrote:
Anyhow, feel free to disagree with me -- I'm no expert here. I'm only
mentioning this as a public service to make it clear that most of
what's being proposed in this thread is, for better or worse, 100%
dead-in-the-water for Python 3, and the rest will have a
On 3/26/07, René Bastian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
May be it would be possible to implement a class with
user definissable (?) signs.
Yes, it is possible and is done.
See this recipe to define an Infix operator class either:
x |op| y
or:
x op y
With the possible inclusion of generic functions in py3k I dont really
see the point of adding more operators. (While i do miss mat1 x mat2
from PDL).
mat3 = mat1.mm(mat2) or the like seems to be sufficient.
I find matrix multiplication annoying in the case of SVD reconstruction:
final =
Em Seg, 2007-03-26 às 01:08 +1000, dpn escreveu:
With the possible inclusion of generic functions in py3k I dont really
see the point of adding more operators. (While i do miss mat1 x mat2
from PDL).
mat3 = mat1.mm(mat2) or the like seems to be sufficient.
I find matrix multiplication
On 3/25/07, Bill Baxter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 3/26/07, Steven H. Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Harrington wrote:
On the other hand, Python, IDL, and Matlab are attractive to us mainly
because their syntaxes allow us to see the math, understand it on
inspection, and verify
Bill Baxter wrote:
Until we get to the point that it's actually harder to find a
non-Unicode console/editor than a Unicode one, I think the idea of
using Unicode symbols as part of the syntax of a general purpose
language is a bad one.
Given that most editors lack good Unicode support, it
On 3/26/07, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What might work better is simply some sort of sign that causes a function to
be parsed as infix, x @dot y for instance, although Python already uses @
for other things. I don't know what symbols are left unused at this point,
maybe ! , $,
Hallo!
1)Isn't it possible to add .A .M attributes to the array matrix
instances? I would find them very useful for some cases more convenient
than asarray() or mat(). Let x.A just do nothing if x is array and x.M
do nothing if x i matrix.
2)And if y=flat(x), what about y.R and y.C for to
Every so often the idea of new operators comes up because of the need to
do both matrix-multiplication and element-by-element multiplication.
I think this is one area where the current Python approach is not as
nice because we have a limited set of operators to work with.
One thing I wonder is
Hi,
I followed the discussion on the scipy ML, and I would advocate it as well.
I miss the dichotomy that is present in Matlab, and to have a similar degree
of freedom, it would be good to have it in the upcoming major release of
Python.
Matthieu
2007/3/24, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3/24/07, Travis Oliphant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Every so often the idea of new operators comes up because of the need to
do both matrix-multiplication and element-by-element multiplication.
I think this is one area where the current Python approach is not as
nice because we have a limited
On 24/03/07, Charles R Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes indeed, this is an old complaint. Just having an infix operator would be
an improvement:
A dot B dot C
Not that I am suggesting dot in this regard ;) In particular, it wouldn't
parse without spaces. What about division? Matlab has
15 matches
Mail list logo
