[Numpy-discussion] the path forward

Travis E. Oliphant oliphant@enthought....
Tue Apr 29 16:43:48 CDT 2008

> 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.


More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list