On Sat, 2013-07-13 at 11:28 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote: <snip> > > I'm now +1 on the exception that Sebastian proposed. > > I like consistency, and having a more straightforward mental model of > the numpy behavior for elementwise operations, that don't pretend > sometimes to be "python" (when I'm doing array math), like this >
I am not sure what the result of this discussion is. As far as I see Benjamin and Frédéric were opposing and overall it seemed pretty mixed, so unless you two changed your mind or say that it was just a small personal preference I would drop it for now. I obviously think the current behaviour is inconsistent to buggy and am really only afraid of possibly breaking code out there. Which is why I think I maybe should first add a FutureWarning if we decide on changing it. Regards, Sebastian > >>> [1,2,3] < [1,2] > False > >>> [1,2,3] > [1,2] > True > > Josef > > > > > > -n > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
