[SciPy-dev] New Operators in Python

Perry Greenfield perry@stsci....
Sat Mar 24 18:06:06 CDT 2007

On Mar 24, 2007, at 5:34 PM, Robert Kern wrote:

> Perry Greenfield wrote:
>> No other solution is as good as this one, not even close. They may
>> consider it of limited use, but it's not the first time they have
>> accommodated numeric needs that are fairly narrow (e.g., complex,
>> rich comparisons). No one else has to use it if they don't want to,
>> and it doesn't conflict with any other current usage (or even
>> proposed as far as I know).
>> So I'm all for asking now.
> I also think it's critical that we don't *ask* for anything.  
> Instead, we need to
> *offer* an implementation. If we are the only people who are going  
> to use it, we
> will have to be the ones who pony up with the implementation.
> Using EasyExtend to experiment with the grammar is probably a good  
> idea to
> ensure feasibility before going full-bore with a patch against the  
> interpreter.
>   http://www.fiber-space.de/EasyExtend/doc/EE.html

I don't disagree. It would be good to get some feedback from them  
before investing much work on this to see if they would even consider  
including the work. If they say: "No way!" then the work is primarily  
political. If it is: "sure, we can consider it if you give us an  
implementation." Then it becomes technical work. But my impressions  
of how this has been received in the past looked more like "Don't  
think so unless we are persuaded that there is a real need for it",  
not that it wasn't worth their effort or wasn't technically possible.


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list