Francesc Altet wrote:

> 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'
> 
>   
> 
My suggestion was based on the usage of rank, with a different meaning, 
in matrices.
n-dim, with n= 0 .. ? seems a neat way around.

Colin W.

> 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,
> 
>   
> 



-------------------------------------------------------
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=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Numpy-discussion mailing list
Numpy-discussion@[...].net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion