[Numpy-discussion] ANN: Scipy 0.14.0 beta 1 release

Hi, I'm pleased to announce the availability of the first beta release of Scipy0.14.0. Please try this beta and report any issues on the scipy-dev mailing list. Source tarballs, binaries and the full release notes can be found at http://sourceforge.net/projects/scipy/files/scipy/0.14.0b1/. Part o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

Le 16/03/2014 15:39, Eelco Hoogendoorn a écrit : > Note that I am not opposed to extra operators in python, and only mildly > opposed to a matrix multiplication operator in numpy; but let me lay out > the case against, for your consideration. > > First of all, the use of matrix semantics relative t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy-Discussion Digest, Vol 90, Issue 45

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 4:37 PM, Colin J. Williams wrote: > I would like to see the case made for @. Yes, I know that Guido has > accepted the idea, but he has changed his mind before. I'm not sure how to usefully respond to this, since, I already wrote a ~20 page document making the case for @?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

> An important distinction between calling dot or @ is that matrix multiplication is a domain where enormous effort has already been spent on > algorithms and building fast, scalable libraries. Yes einsum can call these for some subset of calls but it's also trivial to set up a case where it can't.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Eelco Hoogendoorn wrote: >> >> Different people work on different code and have different experiences >> here -- yours may or may be typical yours. Pauli did some quick checks >> on scikit-learn & nipy & scipy, and found that in their test suites, >> uses of np.dot

Re: [Numpy-discussion] NumPy-Discussion Digest, Vol 90, Issue 45

I would like to see the case made for @. Yes, I know that Guido has accepted the idea, but he has changed his mind before. The PEP seems neutral to retaining both np.matrix and @. Nearly ten years ago, Tim Peters gave us: /There should be one

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

Different people work on different code and have different experiences here -- yours may or may be typical yours. Pauli did some quick checks on scikit-learn & nipy & scipy, and found that in their test suites, uses of np.dot and uses of elementwise-multiplication are ~equally common: ht

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

On Sunday, March 16, 2014, wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith > > > wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Eelco Hoogendoorn >> > >> wrote: >> > Note that I am not opposed to extra operators in python, and only mildly >> > opposed to a matrix multiplication o

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Eelco Hoogendoorn > wrote: > > Note that I am not opposed to extra operators in python, and only mildly > > opposed to a matrix multiplication operator in numpy; but let me lay out > the > > case against,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Eelco Hoogendoorn wrote: > Note that I am not opposed to extra operators in python, and only mildly > opposed to a matrix multiplication operator in numpy; but let me lay out the > case against, for your consideration. > > First of all, the use of matrix semantics

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [RFC] should we argue for a matrix power operator, @@?

Le samedi 15 mars 2014 à 04:32 +, Nathaniel Smith a écrit : > Hi all, > > Here's the second thread for discussion about Guido's concerns about > PEP 465. The issue here is that PEP 465 as currently written proposes > two new operators, @ for matrix multiplication and @@ for matrix power > (ana

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

This is awesome! Congrats! On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Eelco Hoogendoorn < hoogendoorn.ee...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note that I am not opposed to extra operators in python, and only mildly > opposed to a matrix multiplication operator in numpy; but let me lay out > the case against, for your

Re: [Numpy-discussion] It looks like Py 3.5 will include a dedicated infix matrix multiply operator

Note that I am not opposed to extra operators in python, and only mildly opposed to a matrix multiplication operator in numpy; but let me lay out the case against, for your consideration. First of all, the use of matrix semantics relative to arrays semantics is extremely rare; even in linear algeb

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [RFC] should we argue for a matrix power operator, @@?

On 3/15/2014 10:12 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > So to be clear, even if numpy.matrix is going away, and even if > ndarray isn't getting a .I attribute, then you're just as happy > typing/teaching inv(X) as X @@ -1? Yes, that is correct. I am somewhat more unhappy with having to use npla.matrix