[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.
-Travis
More information about the Numpy-discussion
mailing list