Greg Ewing wrote: > Scott Dial wrote: >> Perhaps I'm nobody, but I think this would be ridiculous. Matrices are >> not native objects to the language. > > Why should that matter? We already have things like > sum(), which operates on any sequence of numbers, > without needing a special "array of numbers" data > type. I would argue that Python contains a "array of some_type" data type. That sum() performs a left-fold of __add__ on the array is completely independent of them being numbers. In all fact, they could be any type that supports __add__/__radd__ or even a mix of types. I do not believe "array of numbers" to be analogically equivalent to a "matrix of numbers". We have an "array of" type in Python, we do not have a "matrix of" type in Python. sum() is not an operator, it is a builtin; the suggestion was for there to be an operator, not a builtin. If you want to suggest there be a mmul() builtin, then perhaps there is a viable answer there, despite the lack of a "matrix of" type still. > I don't see why one shouldn't be able to > perform matrix multiplication on a plausible > representation of a matrix using the existing > built-in sequence types. What is "a plausible representation of a matrix"? Is it a list of lists? Row-major (m[1][2]) or column-major (m[2][1])? Is it a dictionary of tuple'd indices (m[1,2])? Also, You went on to talk about wanting to using numpy.array. How does this not make it clear that there is not a case of TOOWTDI? -Scott -- Scott Dial scott at scottdial.com scodial at cs.indiana.edu
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4