A Divendres 24 Febrer 2006 02:47, vàreu escriure:
>  Could these be considered as dimensionless, to avoid having to explain
>  to people that the word rank doesn't have the same meaning as the matrix
>  rank?

Colin Williams was proposing calling arrays coming from array(5) as
'dimensionless'. So, for the moment, we have three ways to name such a
beasts:

- 'rank-0'
- '0-dimensional' or '0-dim' for short
- 'dimensionless'

Perhaps the time has come to choose a number for them (if we have to
live with such array for a long time, as it seems to be the case).

However, as more I think on this the more I'm convinced that,
similarly to their higher dimension counterparts, we will not arrive
to any definite agreement and people will continue to call them in any
way he would be more comfortable with. IMO, this should be not a
problem at all because all three words express a 'lack of
dimensionality'.

Cheers,

-- 
> 0,0<   Francesc Altet     http://www.carabos.com/
V   V   Cárabos Coop. V.   Enjoy Data
 "-"




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language
that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast
and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@[...].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion