On 2014-04-09 12:12, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 8 April 2014 18:32, cjw <fn681 at ncf.ca> wrote: >> Guido, >> >> I am sorry to read this. >> >> I shall be responding more completely in a day or two. >> >> In my view, @ and @@ are completely redundant. Both operations are already >> provided, * and **, in numpy.matrix. >> >> PEP 465 provides no clear indication as to how the standard operators fail. > > Note that numpy.matrix is specifically discussed in > http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/#rejected-alternatives-to-adding-a-new-operator > (it's the first rejected alternative listed). To be fair to Colin, the PEP asserts that the community at large would prefer an operator to the status quo but only alludes to the reason why it does so rather than explaining it fully. Personally, I think that's a reasonable allocation of Nathaniel's time, but then I happen to have agreed with the PEP's position before it was written, and I personally witnessed all of the history myself so I don't need it repeated back to me. -- 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
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