[Numpy-discussion] (Late) summary of PEP-225 discussion at Scipy
Wed Oct 22 17:01:34 CDT 2008
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 16:24, Perry Greenfield <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>> I would add another position (my own) to the "Arguments neutral
>> towards or against the PEP":
>> * I really only care about having just *one* extra operator, one that
>> I can (ab)use for matrix multiplication. It's the only operation that
>> is common enough and with one obvious implementation (I'm looking at
>> you, Matlab's "\") to warrant it, IMO. Doubling the number of
>> operators and special methods is not a price that I'm willing to pay
>> to get it, though.
> Note that although some of the proposals allow for a doubling of the
> number of possible operators, numpy doesn't have to use them all and
> thus doesn't need to double the number of special methods. I'd agree
> that only a few are really necessary (to matrix multiply I'd add the
> logical operators as well).
It doesn't double the number of special methods that numpy uses, but
it does double the number of special methods defined in the language.
*That's* what I'm worried about.
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
More information about the Numpy-discussion