On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:58 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

After 88 emails we don't have a conclusion in the other thread (see [1] for background). But we have to come to some conclusion or another if we want @ to exist :-). So I'll summarize where the discussion stands and let's see if we can find some way to resolve this.

Response in this thread so far seems (AFAICT) to have pretty much converged on same-left.

If you think that this would be terrible and there is some compelling argument against it, then please speak up! Otherwise, if no-one objects, then I'll go ahead in the next few days and put same-left into the PEP.

I think we should take a close look at broadcasting before deciding on the precedence.

Can you elaborate? Like what, concretely, do you think we need to do now?

??? "In examples like this, parenthesizing the code aggressively to spell out the logic, not only to Stata but also to yourself and anybody else reading it, should cause no embarrassment. You need not assume knowledge of Stata's precedence rules that determine interpretation when several operators are used in one expression. More importantly, you may avoid some horrible little bugs." Nicholas J. Cox Trying to figure out what Stata is using: elementwise operations are just below their matrix version in operator precedence. But Stata came late to matrix algebra, and is definitely not like Matlab or Gauss, or numpy. Josef

-n

-- Nathaniel J. Smith Postdoctoral researcher - Informatics - University of Edinburgh http://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion