[Numpy-discussion] SVG Logo of NumPy

Hello, is there a SVG version of the NumPy logo ? This would be to be used on my website. Christophe BAL ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] SVG Logo of NumPy

Sorry for my no-brain question. ;-) Thanks for the link. 2014-03-10 10:46 GMT+01:00 Pierre Haessig : > Le 10/03/2014 10:38, Christophe Bal a écrit : > > is there a SVG version of the NumPy logo ? This would be to be used on > > my website. > Could it be one of those > htt

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

This id good for Numpyists but this will be another operator that good also help in another contexts. As a math user, I was first very skeptical but finally this is a good news for non Numpyists too. Christophe BAL Le 15 mars 2014 02:01, "Frédéric Bastien" a écrit : > This

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

Hello. Maybe a solution would be to not see @ and @@ only from the matrix point of view. Why ? The philosophy of Python is to give total control of the infix operators +, * and ** for example via the magic methods. So it can be also the case for @ and @@ that could be use for something else that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

m left to right so I realy think that is a better choice than the weak-right. Christophe BAL 2014-03-17 21:37 GMT+01:00 Russell E. Owen : > In article > , > Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > OPTION 1 FOR @: > > Precedence: same as * > > Associativity: left > > My

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

Sorry for all the misspellings... 2014-03-17 22:32 GMT+01:00 Christophe Bal : > Hello, > and what about something like that ? > > a @ b @ c -> (a @ b) @ c > a * b @ c -> (a * b) @ c > a @ b * c -> a @ (b * c) > > Easy to remember. The *-product has p

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

antage of this is that most parsers do analyze from left to right. So I really think that it is a better choice than the weak-right one. Christophe BAL 2014-03-17 22:34 GMT+01:00 Christophe Bal : > Sorry for all the misspellings... > > > 2014-03-17 22:32 GMT+01:00 Christophe Bal : &

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

I think that weak-left is a little strange, just think a little of the operators used by mathematicians that always follow a hierarchy. A parser is mostly done using grammars : see http://docs.python.org/3.1/reference/grammar.html. Defining *-product to have stronger priority than the @-product,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

First of all I'm must be very tired because I've written *"I think that weak-left is a little strange..."* instead of *"I think that same-left is a little strange..."*. It is the night in french... ;-) So I'm definitely for the weak-left ! Here is my answer to Alexander Belopolsky. You are right

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

If you see the operators as following a hierarchy, the answer is simply yes. 2014-03-18 0:16 GMT+01:00 Bago : > >> I'm now convinced of the usefulness of @ and @@ too but I also think that >> you must think of other uses than only for numpy. In other words, numpy is >> a the good argument for th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

from arrays to array : mainly @ , * and + (elementwise for the two last). Whereas in the preceding example, the scalar product is from arrays to scalar. As a math user, I think at this point that the arrays-to-array operators must follows a hierarchy. Who is the guy who have asked such a complicated

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

*About weak-left.* You need to define a priority of @ the matrix product regarding to * the elementwise product because (A*B)@C <> A*(B@C) : see the example above. I say that also from a mathematical point of view. Using mathematical like notations, Matrix1 * Matrix2 * 3 can be written because (Ma

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

+6b 10d+12c]* *[21a+24b 28d+32c]* 2014-03-18 16:29 GMT+01:00 Robert Kern : > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Christophe Bal > wrote: > > About weak-left. You need to define a priority of @ the matrix product > > regarding to * the elementwise product because (A*B)@C <

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

When I write "using mathematical like notations...", Matrix1 * Matrix2 is a matrix multiplication. ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

aniel Smith : > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Christophe Bal > wrote: > > About weak-left. You need to define a priority of @ the matrix product > > regarding to * the elementwise product because (A*B)@C <> A*(B@C) > > This doesn't follow. (a / b) * c != a / (

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

I think that there is very big misunderstanding. My point of view is both a mathematical and a programmagical one. Le 18 mars 2014 20:20, "Nathaniel Smith" a écrit : > On 18 Mar 2014 17:32, "Christophe Bal" wrote: > > > > This is a different situ

Re: [Numpy-discussion] [help needed] associativity and precedence of '@'

*K), you quickly evaluate first X = A*B, Y = C*D and Z = G*H*K, and then you can do an efficient @-product of X, Y and Z. 2) If you calculate from left to right, you will do three @-products on couple without having the possibility to choose the more efficient way to evaluate the @-products. Chri

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Resolving the associativity/precedence debate for @

, and I really think that would be the best way to manage products of matrices. The idea is fir example to see A@B@C@D as __atmul__(A, B, C, D). Christophe BAL ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] PEP 465 has been accepted / volunteers needed

Hello, I really think that add a new operator @ is not a good thing. Sorry I just want to make a joke... ;-) Christophe BAL 2014-04-10 15:11 GMT+02:00 : > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 4:43 AM, Francesc Alted wrote: > > On 4/9/14, 10:46 PM, Chris Barker wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 8

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

Hello. Can you give an example where GOTO is useful ? Le 24 sept. 2015 07:24, "Charles R Harris" a écrit : > At last, goto for python ! > > Usage: > > from goto import with_goto > > @with_goto > def range(start, stop): > i = start > result = [] > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

e: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Yarko Tymciurak >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:54 PM, Alexander Eberspächer < >>> alex.eberspaec...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 24.09.20

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

By pseudo example, I mean pseudo code. Le 24 sept. 2015 20:56, "Christophe Bal" a écrit : > To be honest, I am not very conviced. Does someone can give a pseudo > example ? > Le 24 sept. 2015 20:50, "Benjamin Root" a écrit : > >> Most of the time when I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Python needs goto

Very funny ! 😂 Le 25 sept. 2015 07:53, "Alexander Eberspächer" a écrit : > On 24.09.2015 21:12, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > I find Cleve Moler's old Fortran version of Brent's zero finding > > algorithm using gotos clearer than the structured versions you can find > > in Numerical Recipes. The