Talin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ok, so in order to clear up the confusion here, I am going to take a
> moment to try and explain Noam's proposal in clearer language.
>
> Now, as to the specifics of Noam's problem: Apparently what he is trying
> to do is what many other people have done, wh
On 6/18/06, Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2006/6/18, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > But more to the point, this discussion is pointless, since I won't
> > accept the syntax change.
>
> OK, too bad!
>
> But don't say I haven't warned you, when you will all use my fabulous
> pa
2006/6/18, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But more to the point, this discussion is pointless, since I won't
> accept the syntax change.
OK, too bad!
But don't say I haven't warned you, when you will all use my fabulous
package and get tired from typing all those extra parentheses! :)
N
On 6/17/06, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Talin wrote:
> > The motivation, as I understand it, is one of mathematical consistency.
>
> Noam told me in private email that this is *not* the motivation.
> Instead, he wants mutable values. This, in turn, he wants so he
> can catch modi
2006/6/18, Shane Hathaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Try to think more about how users will use your API. You haven't
> specified where those names (sheet1, income_tax, and profit) are coming
> from. What do you expect users of your library to do to bring those
> names into their namespace?
>
That's
Noam Raphael wrote:
> 2006/6/17, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Noam Raphael wrote:
>>> I meant the extra code for writing a special class to handle scalars,
>>> if I decide that the "x[()]" syntax is too ugly or too hard to type,
>>> so I write a special class which will allow the synta
Talin wrote:
> The motivation, as I understand it, is one of mathematical consistency.
Noam told me in private email that this is *not* the motivation.
Instead, he wants mutable values. This, in turn, he wants so he
can catch modifications.
Regards,
Martin
___
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006, Noam Raphael wrote:
>
> Hi, sorry for my repeated posts. I just wanted to say that I improved
> my patch a little bit, so it does exactly the same thing, but with
> smaller code: you can see for yourself at
> http://python.pastebin.com/715221 - it changed exactly 10 lines of
>
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
> Noam Raphael wrote:
>
>>I meant the extra code for writing a special class to handle scalars,
>>if I decide that the "x[()]" syntax is too ugly or too hard to type,
>>so I write a special class which will allow the syntax "x.value".
>
>
> What I cannot understand is why
Hi, sorry for my repeated posts. I just wanted to say that I improved
my patch a little bit, so it does exactly the same thing, but with
smaller code: you can see for yourself at
http://python.pastebin.com/715221 - it changed exactly 10 lines of
code, and adds additional 8 lines, all of them really
2006/6/17, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Noam Raphael wrote:
> > I meant the extra code for writing a special class to handle scalars,
> > if I decide that the "x[()]" syntax is too ugly or too hard to type,
> > so I write a special class which will allow the syntax "x.value".
>
> What I
Noam Raphael wrote:
> I meant the extra code for writing a special class to handle scalars,
> if I decide that the "x[()]" syntax is too ugly or too hard to type,
> so I write a special class which will allow the syntax "x.value".
What I cannot understand is why you use a zero-dimensional array to
Hello,
2006/6/16, Josiah Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm not a mathematician, and I don't really work with arrays of any
> dimensionality, so the need for 0-D subscripting via arr[] while being
> cute, isn't compelling to my uses for Python.
Thanks for appreciating its cuteness...
>
> Now, I a
"Noam Raphael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2006/6/16, Gareth McCaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > None of the above is intended to constitute argument for
> > or against Noam's proposed change to Python. Python isn't
> > primarily a language for mathematicians, and so much the
> > better for Pyt
2006/6/16, Gareth McCaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> None of the above is intended to constitute argument for
> or against Noam's proposed change to Python. Python isn't
> primarily a language for mathematicians, and so much the
> better for Python.
>
Thanks for your explanation of mathematical zero
Hello,
It seems to me that people don't object to my proposal, but don't find
it useful to them either.
The question is, what to do next. I guess one possibility is to raise
this discussion again in a few months, when people will be less
occupied with 2.5 beta. This is ok, although I would prefer
> But only if it makes sense. I still think there are some
> severe conceptual difficulties with 0D arrays. One is
> the question of how many items it contains. With 1 or
> more dimensions, you can talk about its size along any
> chosen dimension. But with 0 dimensions there's no size
> to measure.
BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> I don't know how difficult it is to get rid of the
> implicit "return None" or even if it is doable, but if it is, it
> should, IMHO, be done.
It's been proposed before, and the conclusion was that
it would cause more problems than it would solve.
(Essentially it would r
Noam Raphael wrote:
> I hope that my (hopefully) better explanation made the use case more
> compelling, but I want to add two points in favour of an empty tuple:
I guess I'm really only -0 on the idea of x[] invoking x.__getitem__(), and
allowing the class to decide whether or not to define a de
> > And from a syntax perspective, it's a bad idea. x[] is much
> > more often a typo than an intentional attempt to index a
> > zero-dimensional array.
>
> but how often is it a typo?
>
> for example, judging from c.l.python traffic, forgetting to add a return
> statement is a quite common, but I
Hello,
2006/6/10, Nick Coghlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The closest parallel would be with return/yield, as those actually create real
> tuples the same way subscripts do, and allow the expression to be omitted
> entirely.
>
> By that parallel, however, an implicit subscript (if adopted) should be N
Hello,
I'll try to answer the questions in one message. Sorry for not being
able to do it until now.
About the joke - it isn't, I really need it.
About the timing - Of course, I can live with this getting into 2.6,
and I think that I may even be able to stay alive if this were
rejected. I still
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
>
>> I think the whole discussion about the concept and meaning of
>> zero-dimensional arrays is mostly irrelevant to the original
>> issue. The original issue is a *syntax* question: should
>> x[()] be written as x[]?
>
> But, at least as presented in the
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> I think the whole discussion about the concept and meaning of
> zero-dimensional arrays is mostly irrelevant to the original
> issue. The original issue is a *syntax* question: should
> x[()] be written as x[]?
But, at least as presented in the PEP, it's a
syntax that was mo
Ka-Ping Yee wrote:
> And from a syntax perspective, it's a bad idea. x[] is much
> more often a typo than an intentional attempt to index a
> zero-dimensional array.
but how often is it a typo?
for example, judging from c.l.python traffic, forgetting to add a return
statement is a quite common
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006, Greg Ewing wrote:
> I'm having trouble seeing a real use for a 0D array as
> something distinct from a scalar, as opposed to them
> just being an oddity that happens to arise as a side
> effect of the way Numeric/Numpy are implemented.
I think the whole discussion about the co
Greg Ewing wrote:
> I'm having trouble seeing a real use for a 0D array as
> something distinct from a scalar, as opposed to them
> just being an oddity that happens to arise as a side
> effect of the way Numeric/Numpy are implemented.
This has been rehashed over and over again on numpy-discussio
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I think it more comes from the n-dimensional array approach - 'n=0' is
> then a natural issue to consider.
But only if it makes sense. I still think there are some
severe conceptual difficulties with 0D arrays. One is
the question of how many items it contains. With 1 or
mo
Alex Martelli wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
> ...
>
>>Think about how you get from an N dimensional array to
>>an N-1 dimensional array: you index it, e.g.
>>
>> A2 = [[1, 2], [3, 4]] # a 2D array
>>
>> A1 = A2[1] # a 1D array
>>
>> A0 = A1[1] # a 0D array???
>>
>>
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Tim Hochberg wrote:
>
>> In Numpy, a 0-D array [for example, array(5)] is almost, but not quite,
>> equivalent to scalar [for example, 5]. The difference is that the
>> former is mutable.
>
> Hmmm, I hadn't considered that. I suppose this is
> something that arises from Num
On Jun 9, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Greg Ewing wrote:
...
> Think about how you get from an N dimensional array to
> an N-1 dimensional array: you index it, e.g.
>
> A2 = [[1, 2], [3, 4]] # a 2D array
>
> A1 = A2[1] # a 1D array
>
> A0 = A1[1] # a 0D array???
>
> print A0
>
> What do you think
Tim Hochberg wrote:
> In Numpy, a 0-D array [for example, array(5)] is almost, but not quite,
> equivalent to scalar [for example, 5]. The difference is that the
> former is mutable.
Hmmm, I hadn't considered that. I suppose this is
something that arises from NumPy's "view" semantics
of indexi
Alex Martelli wrote:
> Well, x=23 on one side, and x[]=23 aka x[()]=23 on the other, have
> drastically different semantics. Indexing refers to the contents of
> the zero-dimensional container, rather than to a name to which the
> container happens to be bound (but isn't any more, once one assign
Noam Raphael wrote:
> This PEP suggests to allow the use of an empty subscript list, for
> example ``x[]``, which is currently a syntax error. It is suggested
> that in such a case, an empty tuple will be passed as an argument to
> the __getitem__ and __setitem__ methods. This is consistent with t
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On 6/9/06, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>
> The language doesn't have zero-dimensional arrays, although it doesn't
> prevent users from defining them. but why would one want to index a
> zero-dimensional array, since it has no dimensions? It should b
On 6/9/06, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> The language doesn't have zero-dimensional arrays, although it doesn't
> prevent users from defining them. but why would one want to index a
> zero-dimensional array, since it has no dimensions? It should be
> written as x, not x[].
W
On 9 Jun 2006, at 17:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This is an elaborate joke, right?
>
> On 6/9/06, Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> It's simply this: Currently, the expression "x[]" is a syntax
>> error. I
>> suggest that it will be a valid syntax, and equivalent to "x[()]",
>> ju
On 6/9/06, Nicko van Someren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 9 Jun 2006, at 17:44, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > This is an elaborate joke, right?
> >
> > On 6/9/06, Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> >> It's simply this: Currently, the expression "x[]" is a syntax
> >> error. I
> >> s
This is an elaborate joke, right?
On 6/9/06, Noam Raphael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Recently I discovered that a small change to the Python grammar that
> could help me a lot.
>
> It's simply this: Currently, the expression "x[]" is a syntax error. I
> suggest that it will be a valid
Hello,
Recently I discovered that a small change to the Python grammar that
could help me a lot.
It's simply this: Currently, the expression "x[]" is a syntax error. I
suggest that it will be a valid syntax, and equivalent to "x[()]",
just as "x[a, b]" is equivalent to "x[(a, b)]" right now.
I d
40 matches
Mail list logo
