[Numpy-discussion] Possible new multiplication operators for Python

Fernando Perez fperez.net@gmail....
Sun Aug 17 13:10:11 CDT 2008


On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 6:01 AM, Alan G Isaac <aisaac@american.edu> wrote:
> Aside from "more operators needed", is there a consensus
> view among the developers?

I don't think so, but given that pep 225 exists and is fully fleshed
out, I guess it should be considered the starting point of the
discussion for reference.  This doesn't mean that modifications to it
can't be suggested, but that I'm assuming python-dev will want that as
the reference point.  For something as big as this, they would
definitely want to work off a real pep.

Having said that, I think all ideas are fair game at this point. I
personally would like to see it happen, but if not I'd like to see a
final pronouncement on the matter rather than seeing pep 225 deferred
forever.

> Taking a user's perspective, I see a short run and a long
> run.
>
> SR: I am very comfortable with adding dot versions of operators.
> I am not worried about reversing the Matlab/GAUSS meanings,
> but if others are very worried, we could append the dot
> instead of prepending it.
>
> LR: It would be great to use unicode math operators.
> On this issue, Fortress is being foresightful.
> Accepting the "times" symbol would be a fairly small move
> for most users, since it is in the Latin 1 extension of
> ASCII.

I'll be sure to list this as part of the received feedback.  I'm
personally not too crazy about unicode operators (at least not to the
extent that Fortress went, where basically a special IDE would be
required to write the code in any reasonable scenario).  But I'm
willing to change my mind, and I'm *definitely* acting as scribe here,
so everything that is presented will be reported back.  As we get more
info I'll start a summary document, which will then be completed with
'live' feedback from the session at scipy next week.

Thanks!

Cheers,

f


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list