Bill Spotz wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
>> break most any package based on matrices (mine). And so I hope that
>> such a change wouldn't show up, if at all, until 2.0.
>
> The only code that should break would be indexing the extracted row/
> column with two indexes.
On Apr 29, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Keith Goodman wrote:
> I hope that changing x[0,:] is considered a major change since it will
> break most any package based on matrices (mine). And so I hope that
> such a change wouldn't show up, if at all, until 2.0.
The only code that should break would be indexin
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:18 PM, Alan G Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Keith Goodman apparently wrote:
> > I hope that changing x[0,:] is considered a major change since it will
> > break most any package based on matrices (mine). And so
> > I hope that such a change wou
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Keith Goodman apparently wrote:
> I hope that changing x[0,:] is considered a major change since it will
> break most any package based on matrices (mine). And so
> I hope that such a change wouldn't show up, if at all,
> until 2.0.
What if the extant matrix class would co
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that ``x[0]`` being 2d has produced a variety
> > of anomalies, and the natural fix is for ``x[0]`` to be 1d.
> >
> > Gael has argued strongly that she should be able to use the
> > following no
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 06:44:11PM -0400, Alan G Isaac wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Alan G Isaac apparently wrote:
> > Gael has argued strongly that he should be able to use the
> > following notation: ``x[0,:]*A*x[:,0]``.
> By the way Gael, is
> x.rows(0) * A * x.cols(0)
> a good replacement i
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Alan G Isaac apparently wrote:
> Gael has argued strongly that he should be able to use the
> following notation: ``x[0,:]*A*x[:,0]``.
By the way Gael, is
x.rows(0) * A * x.cols(0)
a good replacement in your view?
I find it nicely explicit and, to meet
another of your concer
> The problem is that ``x[0]`` being 2d has produced a variety
> of anomalies, and the natural fix is for ``x[0]`` to be 1d.
>
> Gael has argued strongly that she should be able to use the
> following notation: ``x[0,:]*A*x[:,0]``. But this will work
> only if ``x[0,:]`` is 2d or if it is 1d bu
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Bruce Southey apparently wrote:
> There is no additional benefit from having row or column
> shapes or metadata because the row/column nature is
> usually predetermined and would be represented by the
> shape of the corresponding matrix.
The problem is that ``x[0]`` being
