On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Na
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >> > After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>> > After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in th
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> > After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
>> > [1] for background). But we have to come
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> > [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> > if we want @ to exist :-). So I
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let's see if we ca
Le 22/03/2014 19:13, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let's see if we
Hi,
Le 22/03/2014 19:13, Nathaniel Smith a écrit :
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let's see if we can fin
The left associativity should be the less disturbing choice.
Using parenthesis to force right associativity will be not too painful. How
many matrices in long product are involved concretely in Numpy projects ?
On the other hand, Nathaniel proposed a new way to evaluate associative
operators, and
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:14 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Robert Kern
> wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> >> [1] for background). But we
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Sturla Molden wrote:
> On the other hand, this
>
> vec.T @ Mat @ Mat
>
> would not need parentheses for optimisation when the associativity is
left.
>
>
Nor does it require .T if vec is 1d.
>
> By the way, the * operator for np.matrix and Matlab matrices are
Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> - There might be some speed argument, if people often write things
> like "Mat @ Mat @ vec"? But no-one has found any evidence that people
> actually do write such things often.
With left associativity, this would be an algorithmic optimization:
Mat @ (Mat @ vec)
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:59 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
>> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
>> if we want @ to exist :-)
Charles R Harris wrote:
> Well, I this point I think we might as well go with left associativity.
> Most of the operator uses looked to involve a single `@`, where it doesn't
> matter, and the others were short where adding a couple of parenthesis
> wouldn't mess things up too much.
That is wha
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let'
Hi,
On 22 March 2014 19:13, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let's see
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let's
Hi Nate,
Many thanks first for the efforts you put in this.
I'm not a computer scientist, but will give my opinion as physicist.
As such, when I see A x B x C (A, B and C being matrices), I tend to read it
from right to
left : Ax (BxC).
But if the size of the matrices do not match like this, t
On 2014/03/22 8:13 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
> [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
> if we want @ to exist:-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
> stands and let's see if we ca
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> If you think of some other arguments in favor of left-associativity,
> then please share!
>
I argued on python-ideas [1] that given the display properties of python
lists and numpy arrays, vec @ Mat is more natural than Mat @ vec. The
la
Hi all,
After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see
[1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another
if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion
stands and let's see if we can find some way to resolve this.
The fundamental questi
21 matches
Mail list logo
