[Numpy-discussion] Response to PEP suggestions
oliphant at ee.byu.edu
Fri Feb 18 10:00:24 CST 2005
konrad.hinsen at laposte.net wrote:
> My view of pythonicity is that retrieving a value should be written as
> attribute access. Methods are more appropriate if there are arguments
> (no choice then anyway) or side effects. So I'd have .type as an
That's my view as well.
> BTW, as the goal is inclusion into the Python core, why not
> 1) Use Python type objects for array creation and as the values of the
Do you mean have register each of the 21 different types of arrays as a
new type object? Hmm. That is an interesting idea. I'm a little
worried about implications for having the arrays behave together, though
it would make it more straightforward to define specific mixed
operations. This does deserve a little more thought.
> 2) Implement scalar types for those array element types that currently
> have no Python scalar equivalent (e.g. UInt16).
Do you think this would fly with the Python folks. Counting the
suggestion above, we would be encouraging the creation of 39 new types
to the Python core. My current count shows the current number of types
as 35 so we would basically double that. This doesn't have to matter,
but I'd have to hear how Guido feels about something like that.
> 3) Implement the same set of attributes of methods for scalar types and
That would be ideal. But, I'm not sure what kind of chance we have
More information about the Numpy-discussion