On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:54 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Charles R Harris >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 7:26 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [...] >> >> How about dropping python 2 support at the same time, then we can all >> >> be >> >> in a @ world. >> >> >> > >> > The "@" operator works with matrices already, what causes problems is >> > the >> > combination of matrices with 1-D arrays. That can be fixed, I think. >> > The >> > big problem is probably the lack of "@" in Python 2.7. I wonder if there >> > is >> > any chance of getting it backported to 2.7 before support is dropped in >> > 2020? I expect it would be a fight, but I also suspect it would not be >> > difficult to do if the proposal was accepted. Then at some future date >> > sparse could simply start returning arrays. >> >> Unfortunately the chance of Python 2.7 adding support for "@" is best >> expressed as a denormal. > > > That's what I figured ;) Hmm, matrices would work fine with the current > combination of '*' (works for scalar muiltiplication) and '@' (works for > matrices). So for Python3 code currently written for matrices can be > reformed to be array compatible. But '@' for Python 2.7 would sure help...
I mean, it can just use arrays + dot(). It's not as elegant as '@', but given that almost everyone has already switched it's clearly not *that* bad... -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
