From: Konrad H. <hi...@cn...> - 2002-09-24 21:18:37
|
"Perry Greenfield" <pe...@st...> writes: > Questions: > > 1) given 2, is there still a desire for .reduce() to return > rank-0 arrays (if not, we have .areduce() which is intented to return > arrays always). > > 2) whichever is the "returns arrays always" reduce method, should the > endpoint be rank-0 arrays or rank-1 len-1 arrays? I don't really see an application where a reduction operation yielding rank-1 or higher arrays would be useful. It would be a special case, not useful for generic programming. So my answer to 2) is rank-0. As for 1), if indexing doesn't return rank-0 arrays, then standard reduction shouldn't either. We would then have a system in which rank-0 arrays are "expert only" stuff, most users would never see them, and they could safely be ignored in tutorials. Konrad. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Konrad Hinsen | E-Mail: hi...@cn... Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.56.24 Rue Charles Sadron | Fax: +33-2.38.63.15.17 45071 Orleans Cedex 2 | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/ France | Nederlands/Francais ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |