Cesare Di Mauro wrote:
Nick Coghlan write:
Dear Raymond,
Thank you for your email.
I think much of this thread is a repeat of conversations that were held for PEP 225: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0225/
That PEP is marked as deferred. Maybe it's time to bring it back to life. This is a much better PEP than the one I had found, and would solve all of the numpy problems. The PEP is very well thought-out. A very interesting read! I wouldn't support some of the more exotic elements tacked on to the end (particularly the replacement of the now
Sebastien Loisel wrote: thoroughly entrenched bitwise operators), but the basic idea of providing ~op variants of several operators seems fairly sound. I'd be somewhat inclined to add ~not, ~and and ~or to the list even though that would pretty much force the semantics to be elementwise for the ~ variants (since the standard not, and and or are always objectwise and without PEP 335 there's no way for an object to change that).
Cheers, Nick.
I agree: adding ~op will be very interesting.
As interesting as I may have found it though, further discussion of the prospect of resurrecting it for consideration in the 2.7/3.1 timeframe should really take place on python-ideas. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia --------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.boredomandlaziness.org