[Numpy-discussion] big picture? One proposal

[Konrad Hinsen]

> The Python core has long had at least 2 examples of operators which
> act as object constructors: 'j' which performs complex() and 'L' which
> performs long() (you can't get much more `pythonic' than a built-in
> type).  

Those are suffixes for constants, not operators. If they were
operators, you could apply them to variables - which you can't.

More importantly, the L suffix wouldn't even work as an operator,
as the preceding number might extend the range of integers before
it has a chance of being converted to a long integer.

> I would venture to say that the numeric community is pretty high up
> there in importance if not size, given the early appearance of the
> complex number type and strong math capacity not to mention GvR's

The complex type was introduced for the benefit of NumPy (I remember
it all too well, as I did the initial implementation), but after a
long discussion on the Python list, with many expressing
disapprovement because of its special-need status. I'd say it shows
the limits of what one can get accepted.

Konrad.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                            | E-Mail: hinsen at cnrs-orleans.fr
Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.56.24
Rue Charles Sadron                       | Fax:  +33-2.38.63.15.17
45071 Orleans Cedex 2                    | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
France                                   | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------