Terry Reedy wrote:
That said, I am curious what working scientists using Python think.
Well, we'll let you know more after SciPy '08, but I suspect the answer is that
they just want one teensy little wafer-thin operator to do matrix multiplication
on numpy arrays or their favorite matrix obj
Fernando Perez wrote:
re
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
I am hereby volunteering to try to organize a BOF session at the conference on
this topic, and can come back later with the summary. I'm also scheduled to
give a talk at BayPiggies on Numpy/Scipy soon after the conference, so
Guido van Rossum 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 round, and his is the only opinion that matters in
Cesare Di Mauro wrote:
Nick Coghlan write:
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
Dear Raymond,
Thank you for your email.
I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
that were held for PEP 225:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
bring
Nick Coghlan write:
> Sebastien Loisel wrote:
>> Dear Raymond,
>>
>> Thank you for your email.
>>
>>> I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
>>> that were held for PEP 225:
>>> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
>>>
>>> That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
>>
Sebastien Loisel wrote:
Dear Raymond,
Thank you for your email.
I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
that were held for PEP 225:
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
bring it back to life.
This is a much better PEP
Dear Raymond,
Thank you for your email.
> I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations
> that were held for PEP 225:
> http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
>
> That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to
> bring it back to life.
This is a much better PEP than the one I ha
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 @@ :-)
I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversa
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 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about just making a matrix multiply function that can take many
arguments? I think this is pretty readable:
mmul(a, b, c, d)
The multiplications aren't necessarily all together, e.g.
a*b + c*d + e*f
would become
mmul(a, b) + mmul(c, d) + mmul(e, f)
--
Gre
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 02:23:11 am [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about just making a matrix multiply function that can take many
> arguments? I think this is pretty readable:
>
> mmul(a, b, c, d)
>
> Additionally, mmul could then optimize the order of the
> multiplications (e.g., depending the dime
The desire for a new operator for matrix mutltiplication is because
binary prefix operators are horrible for expressin this kind of thing,
right?
Stuff like this is hard to write, read, and debug (especially when
checking it against an infix formula):
mmul(mmul(mmul(a, b), c), d)
How about just
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 may write a PEP about this. However, since yesterday I've
realised that there's a rather serious probl
20 matches
Mail list logo
