Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 7 Apr 2014 21:58, "MRAB" wrote: > > On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote: >> >> So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-) >> > Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy Chair! You may want to take a look at the packaging metadata 2.0 spec ;) I was also going to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> You can't be serious. > > I can't? Would it help if I sprinkle smileys and *winks* throughout my > post? You can be serious, Steven, but it's more likely to happen if you *don't* use smileys... *not very serious* ChrisA

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 06:06:17PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 2014-04-08 02:45, Guido van Rossum wrote: So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-) Next thing you know, he'll be threatening people with The Comfy Chair! On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson mailto:benja...@python.org>> wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Ap

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

So what? Aren't we allowed to have fun? :-) On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > > On

Re: [Python-Dev] stupid jokes (was PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication)

On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:11, Barry Warsaw wrote: >> On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> >> >> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old >> >> > now, we should remove it. >> >> >> >> -1 on

[Python-Dev] stupid jokes (was PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication)

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:11, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > >> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old > >> > now, we should remove it. > >> > >> -1 on removal. > > > >You can't be serious. > > Hey man, don't brea

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Apr 07, 2014, at 06:06 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: >> > It occurs to me that since that Aprils' Fools joke is many years old >> > now, we should remove it. >> >> -1 on removal. > >You can't be serious. Hey man, don't break all my code! -Barry __

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 18:04, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > > > > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:04:18PM -0700, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x. I > > >don't think TOOWTDI should be

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

Alexander Belopolsky wrote: We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods structures. I believe that one of the reasons is that many types need to allocate only one of the three. That much is probably true. Numpy arrays, IIRC, allocate all th

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

I'm now accepting the PEP, so you all can stop joking around. On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Larry Hastings wrote: > > On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings wrote: > >> I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 04/07/2014 03:16 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings > wrote: I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language. >>> -1**3001 -1 :-) http://www.quickmeme.com/img/9c/9cb11f91cfda4d161c44e5b2c1

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Larry Hastings wrote: > I am -1**3001 on adding redundant non-ASCII operators to the language. >>> -1**3001 -1 :-) ___ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev U

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:58, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > > >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x. I > >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate. > > PEP 401 to the rescue: It occurs to me th

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Apr 07, 2014, at 05:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: >Python used to have an alias <> for != and I for one miss <> in 3.x. I >don't think TOOWTDI should be the last word in this debate. PEP 401 to the rescue: % python3 Python 3.4.0 (default, Mar 22 2014, 22:51:25) [GCC 4.8.2] on linux Typ

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 04/07/2014 02:47 PM, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: > It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more > readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters. > For example,

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more > > readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters. > > For example, on Linux you can write × using "Compose x x" if you > > configured the Compose key. Or

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > no-one uses the pip -r requirements.txt system for > deployment... > I must be among "no-one" then. :-) Yet my systems don't leave much of a footprint on PyPI because we use PIP_DOWNLOAD_CACHE and internal PyPI mirrors. ___

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 04/07/2014 01:38 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: I'm not sure that it's a good thing to modify the *language* for a specific domain. But you can do a lot without modify the language :-) That ship has already sailed. Features have already been added at the behest of the numerical community. --

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:33, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > > > I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is > > creating a new struct helpful? > > > > We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separat

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > I can understand why creating new array types is good fun, but how is > creating a new struct helpful? > We can start by reviewing the reasons for having separate PyNumber/PySequence/PyMappingMethods structures. I believe that one of the

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 14:22, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > > > > > We can populate that struct with array-specific alternatives for > > > PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically > > > created array types to

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > > We can populate that struct with array-specific alternatives for > > PySequence/PyMappingMethods and eliminate the need for dynamically > > created array types to allocate those. > > Why would we want to do that? I assume "that" means

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > Hi, > > 2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith : >> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome: >> http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ > > I'm not convinced yet that there is enough usage of Python

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: > I proposed to support both syntaxes, so you can write "@" if you are > unable to write ×. > It won't be obvious for the readers of the code whether × stands for @ or for *. Both * and @ are ASCII approximations to proper mathematical typeset

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

2014-04-07 22:46 GMT+02:00 Antoine Pitrou : > Le 07/04/2014 22:38, Victor Stinner a écrit : >> It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more >> readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters. > > Well, IMHO Python code should be writable without having to "confi

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

Le 07/04/2014 22:38, Victor Stinner a écrit : It would be nice to support A × B too, because it's much more readable. You can configure a keyword to write arbitrary characters. Well, IMHO Python code should be writable without having to "configure your keyboard". Regards Antoine. ___

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

Hi, 2014-04-07 3:41 GMT+02:00 Nathaniel Smith : > So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome: > http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ I'm not convinced yet that there is enough usage of Python in mathematical world to modify the Python language to add a new

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 7:54 PM, francis wrote: > >> >> So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback > welcome: >> http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ >> > > Hi, > just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in: > > PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On 2014-04-07 19:54, francis wrote: So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ Hi, just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in: PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2) not a poin

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

> > So, I guess as far as I'm concerned, this is ready to go. Feedback welcome: > http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0465/ > Hi, just curiosity: why is the second parameter 'o2' in: PyObject* PyObject_MatrixMultiply(PyObject *o1, PyObject o2) not a pointer to PyObject? Thanks in advance!

Re: [Python-Dev] [Python-checkins] cpython (3.4): asyncio: Document Task.cancel() properly.

On 4/7/2014 5:22 AM, victor.stinner wrote: def cancel(self): +"""Request that a task to cancel itself. For proper English, this should be one of these: "Request that a task cancel itself." "Request a task to cancel itself." I think the first is slightly better. TJR ___

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014, at 9:52, Alexander Belopolsky wrote: > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson > wrote: > > > > I believe this leaves only one open question, which is where exactly > > > to stick the new matmul slots into PyTypeObject. This is the kind of > > > fiddly detail that

Re: [Python-Dev] PEP 465: A dedicated infix operator for matrix multiplication

On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Benjamin Peterson wrote: > > I believe this leaves only one open question, which is where exactly > > to stick the new matmul slots into PyTypeObject. This is the kind of > > fiddly detail that can easily be settled later if the PEP is accepted, > > though. > > I d

Re: [Python-Dev] Python-Dev Digest, Vol 129, Issue 6

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Kells Pablo wrote: > HELLO... > > !thank you for all the cooperation and emails send. i would like that you > now stop sending them.. > > thank you in advance > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:22 PM, wrote: >> >> Send Python-Dev mailing list submissions to >> py

[Python-Dev] Windows buildbots are red: test_idlelib

Hi, Unit tests are failing on Windows because of this issue: http://bugs.python.org/issue21059 It looks like a regression in test_idlelib introduced with this issue: http://bugs.python.org/issue15968 Zachary Ware wrote a fix: http://bugs.python.org/issue20035 Can someone please review Zachary's