Dear Greg,
Thank you for your email.
> In MATLAB, the elementwise operations are probably
> used fairly infrequently. But numpy arrays are often
> used to vectorise what are otherwise scalar operations,
> in which case elementwise operations are used almost
> exclusively.
Your assessment of poin
Fredrik Johansson wrote:
Further, while A**B is not so common, A**n is quite common (for
integral n, in the sense of repeated matrix multiplication). So a
matrix multiplication operator really should come with a power
operator cousin.
Which obviously should be @@ :-)
Well, Fortress probably
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
let
me describe MATLAB's approach to this. It features a complete suite of
matrix operators (+-*/\^), and their pointwise variants (.+ .- ./ .*
.^)
That was considered before as well, but rejected on
the grounds that the dot-prefixed operators were too
cumbersome to use
Guido van Rossum wrote:
last time '@' was considered as a new operator, that character had no
uses in the language at all. Now it is the decorator marker.
The only alternatives left would seem to be ?, ! or $,
none of which look particularly multiplicationish.
But would it be totally outland
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 2:26 AM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>>
>>> What are the odds of this thing going in?
>>
>> I don't know. Guido has said nothing about it so far this
>> time r
Dear Guido,
Thank you for your email.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But would it be totally outlandish to propose A**B for matrix
> multiplication? I can't think of what "matrix exponentiation" would
> mean...
Right now, ** is the pointwise power:
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:26 PM, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But would it be totally outlandish to propose A**B for matrix
> multiplication? I can't think of what "matrix exponentiation" would
> mean...
Before even reading this paragraph, A**B came to my mind, so I suspect
it wou
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Mark Hammond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Trent, I was wondering if you could look at some test failures in MS
>> Windows builds. I can't debug Windows issues myself :-(. This is a MS
>> free environment...
>
> In these errors I see lots of bsdbd errors, many of t
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 6:50 PM, Greg Ewing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>
>> What are the odds of this thing going in?
>
> I don't know. Guido has said nothing about it so far this
> time round, and his is the only opinion that matters in the
> end.
I'd rather stay silent
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Leaving aside the 0.2 => 0 converstion, shouldn't read() raise an
> exception if asked for < 1 bytes? Or is there a legitimate use for read(0)
> with which I was not previously aware?
Indeed. read(0) is quite often gene
+1 as well.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:47 AM, Benjamin Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 3:13 PM, Georg Brandl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The parser module exports each function and type twice, once with "AST" in
>> the name, once with "ST". Since "AST" now has a diff
On Jul 29, 2008, at 12:56 PM, Lupusoru, Razvan A wrote:
Hello,
I am trying to get Python 2.5.2 working for an IA32 system. The
compilation is done on an Ubuntu 8.04.1 dev system. I am using a
custom gcc and ld specific to the IA32 system.
This is my makefile:
#
Hello,
I am trying to get Python 2.5.2 working for an IA32 system. The
compilation is done on an Ubuntu 8.04.1 dev system. I am using a custom
gcc and ld specific to the IA32 system.
This is my makefile:
##
BUILD_DEST = /i686-custom-kernel
CC = $(BUILD_DEST)/b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Amaury Forgeot d'Arc wrote:
| I see that some tests use os.unlink. They should use
| test_support.unlink() instead.
Old stuff. Fix just committed.
- --
Jesus Cea Avion _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/_/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http:/
14 matches
Mail list logo
