[Numpy-discussion] (Late) summary of PEP-225 discussion at Scipy

Eric Firing efiring@hawaii....
Wed Oct 22 19:17:18 CDT 2008

Perry Greenfield 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).

I think a stronger general numpy case might be made for the logical 
operators than for matrix multiplication.  An alternative approach, and 
I think preferable to introducing new logical operators, is PEP 335: 
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0335/.  It is still on the "under 
consideration" list, but it has been there since 2004.  Perhaps it needs 
a strong push?


> Perry
> _______________________________________________
> Numpy-discussion mailing list
> Numpy-discussion@scipy.org
> http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list