[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

> 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

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.




More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list