2014-04-09 17:37 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-08 14:52 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00
On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw fn...@ncf.ca wrote:
Guido,
I am sorry to read this.
I shall be responding more completely in a day or two.
In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are already
provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix.
PEP 465 provides no clear indication as
On 2014-04-09 12:12, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw fn...@ncf.ca wrote:
Guido,
I am sorry to read this.
I shall be responding more completely in a day or two.
In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are already
provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix.
On 9 Apr 2014 12:34, Robert Kern robert.k...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2014-04-09 12:12, Nick Coghlan wrote:
On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw fn...@ncf.ca wrote:
Guido,
I am sorry to read this.
I shall be responding more completely in a day or two.
In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant.
2014-04-08 14:52 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
On 4/8/2014 6:32 PM, cjw wrote:
Larry Hastings
https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-April/133818.html
wasn't far from the truth.
Larry's note was about adding (redundant) *NON-ascii* unicode symbols,
in particular × == \xd7, as in A × B, as a synonym for '@'. Various
people have
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-08 14:52 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
So, I guess as far as I'm
Guido,
I am sorry to read this.
I shall be responding more completely in a day or two.
In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are
already provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix.
PEP 465 provides no clear indication as to how
2014-04-08 3:04 GMT+02:00 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info:
Python used to have an alias for != and I for one miss in 3.x. I
don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
PEP 401 to the rescue:
It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
now,
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
Couldn't you please have made your motivation example actually runnable?
import numpy as np
from numpy.linalg
Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
import numpy as np
from numpy.linalg import inv, solve
# Using dot function:
S = np.dot((np.dot(H, beta) - r).T,
np.dot(inv(np.dot(np.dot(H, V), H.T)), np.dot(H, beta) - r))
# Using dot method:
S = (H.dot(beta) -
2014-04-08 12:23 GMT+02:00 Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com:
Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
import numpy as np
from numpy.linalg import inv, solve
# Using dot function:
S = np.dot((np.dot(H, beta) - r).T,
np.dot(inv(np.dot(np.dot(H, V), H.T)), np.dot(H, beta) -
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 Apr 2014 21:58, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:
So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)
Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy
On 8 April 2014 21:24, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-08 12:23 GMT+02:00 Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com:
Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
import numpy as np
from numpy.linalg import inv, solve
# Using dot function:
S = np.dot((np.dot(H, beta) - r).T,
On Apr 8, 2014 2:39 PM, Nick Coghlan ncogh...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 April 2014 21:24, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-08 12:23 GMT+02:00 Sturla Molden sturla.mol...@gmail.com:
Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
import numpy as np
from numpy.linalg import inv,
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Björn Lindqvist bjou...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
Couldn't you please have made your
Ooooh...that stings.
Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-04-08 3:04 GMT+02:00 Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info:
Python used to have an alias for != and I for one miss in
3.x. I
don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
PEP 401 to the rescue:
It
Le 08/04/2014 04:02, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
Many, many more people take part in the CPython core developer culture
than just the core developers themselves. Look at the readership of this
mailing list, which is open to the public and has regular posters who
aren't core developers. In-jokes
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 2:49 AM, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le 08/04/2014 04:02, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
Many, many more people take part in the CPython core developer culture
than just the core developers themselves. Look at the readership of this
mailing list, which is open
On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:49:13PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le 08/04/2014 04:02, Steven D'Aprano a écrit :
Many, many more people take part in the CPython core developer culture
than just the core developers themselves. Look at the readership of this
mailing list, which is open to the
Victor Stinner wrote:
I started to implement the RFC 1924 to have a full support.
3 days later, when my code was working, I saw the date of the RFC...
Do you still have the code? It needn't go to waste -- this
would make a fine addition to Python's easter egg basket!
--
Greg
2014-04-09 1:13 GMT+02:00 Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz:
Victor Stinner wrote:
I started to implement the RFC 1924 to have a full support.
3 days later, when my code was working, I saw the date of the RFC...
Do you still have the code? It needn't go to waste -- this
would make a
Guido,
I am sorry to read this.
I shall be responding more completely in a day or two.
In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are
already provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix.
PEP 465 provides no clear indication as to how
On 9 Apr 2014 00:15, Greg Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Victor Stinner wrote:
I started to implement the RFC 1924 to have a full support.
3 days later, when my code was working, I saw the date of the RFC...
Do you still have the code? It needn't go to waste -- this
would make
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.orgwrote:
I believe this leaves only one open question, which is where exactly
to stick the new matmul slots into PyTypeObject. This is the kind of
fiddly detail that can easily be settled later if the PEP is accepted,
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 9:52, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson
benja...@python.orgwrote:
I believe this leaves only one open question, which is where exactly
to stick the new matmul slots into PyTypeObject. This is the kind of
fiddly
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback
welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
Hi,
just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in:
PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2)
not a pointer to PyObject?
Thanks in advance!
On 2014-04-07 19:54, francis wrote:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback
welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
Hi,
just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in:
PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2)
not a
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM, francis franci...@email.de wrote:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback
welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
Hi,
just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in:
PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject
Hi,
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
I'm not convinced yet that there is enough usage of Python in
mathematical world to modify the Python language
Le 07/04/2014 22:38, Victor Stinner a écrit :
It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
Well, IMHO Python code should be writable without having to configure
your keyboard.
Regards
Antoine.
2014-04-07 22:46 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net:
Le 07/04/2014 22:38, Victor Stinner a écrit :
It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
Well, IMHO Python code should be writable without
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.comwrote:
I proposed to support both syntaxes, so you can write @ if you are
unable to write ×.
It won't be obvious for the readers of the code whether × stands for @ or
for *. Both * and @ are ASCII approximations to proper
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Victor Stinner victor.stin...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com:
So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome:
http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/
I'm not convinced yet that
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
We can populate that struct with array-specific alternatives for
PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically
created array types to allocate those.
Why would we want to do that?
I assume
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:22, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
wrote:
We can populate that struct with array-specific alternatives for
PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically
created array
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.orgwrote:
I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is
creating a new struct helpful?
We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate
PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods
structures. I
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:33, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson
benja...@python.orgwrote:
I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is
creating a new struct helpful?
We can start by reviewing the reasons for
On 04/07/2014 01:38 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
I'm not sure that it's a good thing to modify the *language*
for a specific domain. But you can do a lot without modify the
language :-)
That ship has already sailed. Features have already been added at the behest
of the numerical community.
--
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
no-one uses the pip -r requirements.txt system for
deployment...
I must be among no-one then. :-) Yet my systems don't leave much of a
footprint on PyPI because we use PIP_DOWNLOAD_CACHE and internal PyPI
mirrors.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
For example, on Linux you can write × using Compose x x if you
configured the Compose
On 04/07/2014 02:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com
mailto:n...@pobox.com wrote:
It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more
readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters.
On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
Python used to have an alias for != and I for one miss in 3.x. I
don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
PEP 401 to the rescue:
% python3
Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 22 2014, 22:51:25)
[GCC 4.8.2] on linux
Type
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
Python used to have an alias for != and I for one miss in 3.x. I
don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate.
PEP 401 to the rescue:
It occurs to me that since
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language.
-1**3001
-1
:-)
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org
mailto:la...@hastings.org wrote:
I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language.
-1**3001
-1
:-)
I'm now accepting the PEP, so you all can stop joking around.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings la...@hastings.org wrote:
I am -1**3001 on adding
Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate
PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods structures. I believe that one of
the reasons is that many types need to allocate only one of the three.
That much is probably true.
Numpy arrays, IIRC, allocate all
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
Python used to have an alias for != and I for one miss in 3.x. I
don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote:
Python used to have an alias for != and I for one miss
On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old
now, we should remove it.
-1 on removal.
You can't be serious.
Hey man, don't break all my code! wink
-Barry
___
So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.orgwrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw
On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:
So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)
Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy Chair!
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson benja...@python.org
mailto:benja...@python.org wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote:
On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano st...@pearwood.info wrote:
You can't be serious.
I can't? Would it help if I sprinkle smileys and *winks* throughout my
post?
You can be serious, Steven, but it's more likely to happen if you
*don't* use smileys...
*not very serious*
ChrisA
On 7 Apr 2014 21:58, MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com wrote:
On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote:
So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-)
Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy Chair!
You may want to take a look at the packaging metadata 2.0 spec ;)
I
Hi all,
I've just finished updating PEP 465 with resolutions to the various
issues that were raised during the python-ideas thread about it. (The
main changes since that thread are that @@ has been removed, and we
now definitely propose that @ have the same precedence and
associativity as *.)
I
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014, at 18:41, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Hi all,
I've just finished updating PEP 465 with resolutions to the various
issues that were raised during the python-ideas thread about it. (The
main changes since that thread are that @@ has been removed, and we
now definitely propose
58 matches
Mail list logo
