On 5/9/2015 4:26 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > dot(A, B) where one of the argument is a scalar: currently, this > does scalar multiplication. There is no logically consistent > motivation for this, it violates TOOWTDI, and again it is inconsistent > with the PEP semantics for @ (which are that this case should be an > error).
Do I recall incorrectly: I thought that reconciliation of `@` and `dot` was explicitly not part of the project on getting a `@` operator? I do not mean this to speak for or against the change above, which I only moderately oppose, but rather to the argument offered. As for the "logic" of the current behavior, can it not be given a tensor product motivation? (Otoh, it conflicts with the current behavior of `vdot`.) Alan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
