On 3/26/07, Steven H. Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joe Harrington wrote: > > > > On the other hand, Python, IDL, and Matlab are attractive to us mainly > > because their syntaxes allow us to see the math, understand it on > > inspection, and verify its correctness. The math we write in these > > languages looks as much like the math we do on paper as ASCII will > > allow. (Obviously, we also choose them because we don't like writing > > loops and declaring variables.) > > > > So, whenever I hear someone suggest using a functional syntax for a > > concept that exists notationally, I cringe. We're alienating a class > > of users each time we do that. Those are people who will never come > > to Python. There are extremes to which this argument cannot go - a > > prime will never be a derivative because quotes are more important - > > but I think that matrix multiplication is a no-brainer here. We > > should let the Python developers know we want it now and then follow > > up with a syntax and implementation. > > > > > > Sun's Fortress programming language > (http://research.sun.com/projects/plrg/faq/index.html) will include > Unicode operators and two dimensional equations. Something like this > should be possible for NumPy. The question is how much can and should > be pushed into the Python core language.
Until we get to the point that it's actually harder to find a non-Unicode console/editor than a Unicode one, I think the idea of using Unicode symbols as part of the syntax of a general purpose language is a bad one. I'm looking forward to see what becomes of Fortress, but it's basically still an experiment at this point. --bb _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://projects.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
