[Numpy-discussion] (Late) summary of PEP-225 discussion at Scipy

[Gabriel Gellner]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:00:20PM -0700, Fernando Perez wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> much delayed, but here it is, finally.  The doc regarding our
> discussion about PEP 225 is attached, and I'm keeping a public copy
> for viewing convenience (with html) here:
> 
> https://cirl.berkeley.edu/fperez/static/numpy-pep225/
> 
> Note that, as indicated in the link above, the real doc is in bzr, so
> you can check it out to generate patches or a  branch (the preferred
> formats for big changes).
> 
> This is just a first cut, going from memory and notes.  I'd appreciate
> any feedback, corrections, etc.  I'm giving a talk at the BayPiggies
> group Nov 13 about SciPy and will take the opportunity to bring this
> document up, since that user group has a lot of python people,
> including some core developers.
> 
> Since this is from memory and written by me, it's likely pretty
> biased.  But I really want to clarify that I'm trying to act as a
> scribe here, not to push my own agenda (I do have one :).  So please
> bring up anything you feel is missing/misstated here; I'd really like
> to have a doc that people feel is a fair representation of the
> community's views to bring to the core python team.  That way we
> either get our operators or not once and for all, but this issue can
> be put to rest in the language for good (as of 2.7/3.1, of course).
> 
> So let's have Nov 11 or so as a wrapup deadline on this discussion, so
> I can have the summary ready for the Nov 13 talk.
> 
> Best,
> 
> f
Thanks for taking the lead on this. Just in case you want more examples Fortran 90/95
allows for operator definition like R see:
http://h21007.www2.hp.com/portal/download/files/unprot/fortran/docs/lrm/lrm0184.htm#generic_inter_op

I think this is ideal as I am used to it, but at the least I vote for a
multiplication operator.

Gabriel