Re: [Numpy-discussion] PyMatrix: Announcement

[Colin J. W. <cj...@sy...>]

Perry Greenfield wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: num...@li...
>>[mailto:num...@li...]On Behalf Of 
>>Sebastian
>>Haase
>>Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 1:45 PM
>>To: Colin J. Williams
>>Cc: num...@li...
>>Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] PyMatrix: Announcement
>>
>>
>>Thanks for the reply.
>>PEP 225  is from Sept-2000  and http://matpy.sourceforge.net and 
>>dated from
>>Mar-2002 (Python 2.0)
>>
>>That is about the results I got from my first google-groups 
>>search.  What is
>>the current thinking about this ?
>>Looks to me like the "new operator" idea is dead. Or ??
>>
>>I actually like (read: could live with)  alternative 4 in PEP 
>>225: which is,
>>to provide operator overloading for what I call
>>"different views"  of the same matrix / image.  How difficult is this to
>>implement ?
>>(What is the real difference to alternative 3 ?  They both have 
>>m1.E * m2.E
>>. )
>>
>>Regards,
>>Sebastian
>>
>>
>> None
>>
>>    
>>
>If I recall correctly, Guido didn't dismiss it out of hand, but he
>wasn't going to do anything about it unless there was sufficient
>noise from the community that this was very important. I think it
>is, and I suppose if we campaign enough, it may be considered.
>
>Perry
>  
>
There has been little clamour for adding this complication to the syntax 
over the last three plus years.

I suggest that PyMatrix shows that the desired results can be achieved, 
with few additional key strokes and without adding to the Python 
character set.

Colin W