On Mar 17, 2005, at 12:05 PM, konrad.hinsen@laposte.net wrote:
On 17.03.2005, at 06:08, Robert Kern wrote:
I'm too lazy to search right now, but I'm pretty sure that Konrad suggested the opposite: that x.sin(), while possibly "cleaner" in an OO-fetishistic sense, jars too much against the expectation of sin(x) that all of us got accustomed to in math class. Maybe I should let him speak for himself, though. :-)
I agree. What I suggested is that there should be methods as well as functions, and that the ufuncs should call the methods, such that
Numeric.sin(x)
would simply become syntactic sugar for
x.sin()
whatever the type of x. But I don't expect to see x.sin() in application code, it's just a convenient way of implementing sin() in new classes and subclasses. Actually, x.__sin__() would be a more pythonic choice of method name.
Konrad.
It would be hard to imagine not allowing the functional form. Users would think we were crazy. (And they'd be right ;-) Perry