[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> George Sakkis wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > However, I'm designing another library for
> > > managing multi-dimensional arrays of data. Its purpose is similiar to
> > > that of a spreadsheet - analyze data and preserve the relations between
> > > a source
George Sakkis wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > However, I'm designing another library for
> > managing multi-dimensional arrays of data. Its purpose is similiar to
> > that of a spreadsheet - analyze data and preserve the relations between
> > a source of a calculation and its destination.
>
greg wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
>
> > Think of it this way: an array with n-dimensions of length 3 would have
> > 3**n total entries. How many entries would a 0-dimensional array have?
> > 3**0 == 1.
>
> Er, hang on a minute. Along which dimension of this
> 0-dimensional array does it have a len
Carl Banks wrote:
> Think of it this way: an array with n-dimensions of length 3 would have
> 3**n total entries. How many entries would a 0-dimensional array have?
> 3**0 == 1.
Er, hang on a minute. Along which dimension of this
0-dimensional array does it have a length of 3? :-)
--
Greg
--
Carl Banks wrote:
> How would you index a 2-D array? With a 2-tuple.
> How would you index a 1-D array? With a 1-tuple.
> How would you index a 0-D array? ...
array dimensions don't exist at the Python level. you're confusing
behaviour that a custom class may provide with Python's view of th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> However, I'm designing another library for
> managing multi-dimensional arrays of data. Its purpose is similiar to
> that of a spreadsheet - analyze data and preserve the relations between
> a source of a calculation and its destination.
Sounds interesting. Will it be r
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> noam's proposal is to make this work:
>
> >>> x[]
> ()
>
> (but should it really result in an empty tuple? wouldn't None be a bit
> more Pythonic?)
How would you index a 2-D array? With a 2-tuple.
How would you index a 1-D array? With a 1-tuple.
How would you index a 0-D
Steve Holden wrote:
> Carl Banks wrote:
> > Steve Holden wrote:
> >
> >>Hey, I have an idea, why don't we look at the language reference manual
> >>instead of imagining how we think it might work!
> >
> >
> > I don't know. Sounds risky.
> >
> >
> >
> >>In section 3.2 we find:
> >>
> >>
> >>"""
>
Hello,
Following Fredrik's suggestion, I wrote a pre-PEP. It's available on
the wiki, at http://wiki.python.org/moin/EmptySubscriptListPEP and I
also copied it to this message.
Have a good day,
Noam
PEP: XXX
Title: Allow Empty Subscript List Without Parentheses
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified
Op 2006-06-08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello,
>
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> > In a few more words: Currently, an object can be subscripted by a few
>> > elements, separated by commas. It is evaluated as if the object was
>> > subscripted by a tuple containing those elements.
>>
Hello,
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
> (but should it really result in an empty tuple? wouldn't None be a bit
> more Pythonic?)
I don't think it would. First of all, x[()] already has the desired
meaning in numpy. But I think it's the right thing - if you think of
what's inside the brackets as a list of
Hello,
Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> I think it's ugly to begin with. In math, one would write simply 'x'
> to denote an unsubscribed (ubsubscripted?) 'x'. And another point, why
> would one call __getitem__ without an item to call?
I think that in this case, mathematical notation is different from
pyth
Sybren Stuvel wrote:
> Just curious: how would you initialize 'x' in such a case? If I simply
> say 'x = []' and then try to index it with x[1, 2], I get "TypeError:
> list indices must be integers".
that's up to the x implementation to decide, of course:
>>> class MyContainer:
... def __ge
Carl Banks wrote:
> Steve Holden wrote:
>
>>Hey, I have an idea, why don't we look at the language reference manual
>>instead of imagining how we think it might work!
>
>
> I don't know. Sounds risky.
>
>
>
>>In section 3.2 we find:
>>
>>
>>"""
>>Tuples
>>The items of a tuple are arbitrary P
Steve Holden wrote:
> Hey, I have an idea, why don't we look at the language reference manual
> instead of imagining how we think it might work!
I don't know. Sounds risky.
> In section 3.2 we find:
>
>
> """
> Tuples
> The items of a tuple are arbitrary Python objects. Tuples of two or more
>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The question is, is this,
> conceptually, the feature that allows you to ommit the parentheses of a
> tuple in some cases.
To repeat: tuples are defined by commas. There are no 'parentheses of a
tuple', except for empty tuples, to b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Well, what do you think about this?
-0 from me, but it's definitely a PEP-able proposal.
suggestion: turn your post into a pre-PEP and post it somewhere, post
the patch to the patch tracker, and post a brief heads-up to python-dev,
and see what happens.
(you probabl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>
>>So I do not see any point or usefulness in saying that a tuple subcript is
>>not what it is.
>
>
> I know that a tuple is *constructed*. The question is, is this,
> conceptually, the feature that allows you to ommit the parentheses of
Hello,
Terry Reedy wrote:
> So I do not see any point or usefulness in saying that a tuple subcript is
> not what it is.
I know that a tuple is *constructed*. The question is, is this,
conceptually, the feature that allows you to ommit the parentheses of a
tuple in some cases. If we see this as t
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Terry Reedy wrote:
>> > In a few more words: Currently, an object can be subscripted by a few
>> > elements, separated by commas. It is evaluated as if the object was
>> > subscripted by a tuple containing those elements.
>>
>> It is n
Hello,
Terry Reedy wrote:
> > In a few more words: Currently, an object can be subscripted by a few
> > elements, separated by commas. It is evaluated as if the object was
> > subscripted by a tuple containing those elements.
>
> It is not 'as if'. 'a,b' *is* a tuple and the object *is* subcript
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hello,
>
> I discovered that I needed a small change to the Python grammar. I
> would like to hear what you think about it.
>
> In two lines:
> Currently, the expression "x[]" is a syntax error.
> I suggest that it will be evaluated li
Hello,
I discovered that I needed a small change to the Python grammar. I
would like to hear what you think about it.
In two lines:
Currently, the expression "x[]" is a syntax error.
I suggest that it will be evaluated like "x[()]", just as "x[a, b]" is
evaluated like "x[(a, b)]" right now.
In a
23 matches
Mail list logo
