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

[Robert Kern]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 16:00, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> much delayed, but here it is, finally.  The doc regarding our
> discussion about PEP 225 is attached, and I'm keeping a public copy
> for viewing convenience (with html) here:
>
> https://cirl.berkeley.edu/fperez/static/numpy-pep225/
>
> Note that, as indicated in the link above, the real doc is in bzr, so
> you can check it out to generate patches or a  branch (the preferred
> formats for big changes).
>
> This is just a first cut, going from memory and notes.  I'd appreciate
> any feedback, corrections, etc.  I'm giving a talk at the BayPiggies
> group Nov 13 about SciPy and will take the opportunity to bring this
> document up, since that user group has a lot of python people,
> including some core developers.
>
> Since this is from memory and written by me, it's likely pretty
> biased.  But I really want to clarify that I'm trying to act as a
> scribe here, not to push my own agenda (I do have one :).  So please
> bring up anything you feel is missing/misstated here; I'd really like
> to have a doc that people feel is a fair representation of the
> community's views to bring to the core python team.  That way we
> either get our operators or not once and for all, but this issue can
> be put to rest in the language for good (as of 2.7/3.1, of course).

You sentence ending "Operator form for logical_X functions" is not finished.

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.

-- 
Robert Kern

"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless
enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as
though it had an underlying truth."
  -- Umberto Eco