[Numpy-discussion] the path forward
Keith Goodman
kwgoodman@gmail....
Tue Apr 29 19:01:11 CDT 2008
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
<oliphant@enthought.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that ``x[0]`` being 2d has produced a variety
> > of anomalies, and the natural fix is for ``x[0]`` to be 1d.
> >
> > Gael has argued strongly that she should be able to use the
> > following notation: ``x[0,:]*A*x[:,0]``. But this will work
> > only if ``x[0,:]`` is 2d or if it is 1d but has an "orientation".
> >
> > So *if* you think ``x[0] == x[0,:]`` is desirable, *and* you
> > want to satisfy Gael, *then* it seems you must introduce 1d
> > "oriented" vectors.
> >
> > I believe Travis is also suggesting that we travel that
> > road, taking a first step as follows:
> > for now let ``x[0]`` be a 1d array to quickly fix the
> > anomalies, but let ``x[0,:]`` continue to be a matrix
> > until the vector code is written, at which point ``x[0]``
> > and ``x[0,:]`` we be the same "row vector".
> >
> > Or so I have understood things.
> >
> You've characterized my current thinking pretty well. I'm less
> concerned that x[0] != x[0,:] than I think Gael is.
I hope that changing x[0,:] is considered a major change since it will
break most any package based on matrices (mine). And so I hope that
such a change wouldn't show up, if at all, until 2.0.
More information about the Numpy-discussion
mailing list