471,071 Members | 1,500 Online

# consistency: extending arrays vs. multiplication ?

Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

a=[1,2,3]
b=[4,5,6]
a+b [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

instead of what I would have expected:
[5,7,9]

or
2*a

[1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3]

Well it is consistent to strings but tolerating string-operations to be
special is ok to me as "a" + "b" -> 'ab' :)
Why not make it another function like a.stretch() or a.expand() and
a.extend() is there doing the same anyway and is more readable...

Putting this in a larger view:
Ufuncs are very reasonable sin(a), etc ... all that won't work because
of that '+','*' syntax. Ok I can use numarray for that, but seeing its
PEP and a possible inclusion into python at some point that
inconsistency is giving me quite some headache...

Will that change in the future ? Or is this 100*[0] syntax put into
stone for all ages ?

Best,
Soeren.

PS: As I am very new to python please forgive/correct me!

Jul 23 '05 #1
11 2128
In <ma***************************************@python. org>, Soeren
Sonnenburg wrote:
Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

a=[1,2,3]
b=[4,5,6]
a+b

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Both operate on the lists themselves and not on their contents. Quite

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
Jul 23 '05 #2
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:30:02 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

* and + are not array operations, they are list operations.

Lists in Python can contain anything, not just numeric values.

Python doesn't have built-in mathematical arrays, otherwise known as
matrices. There are modules that do that, but I haven't used them. Google
on Numeric Python.

--
Steven.

Jul 24 '05 #3
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

a=[1,2,3]
b=[4,5,6]
a+b

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

instead of what I would have expected:
[5,7,9]

To get what you expected, use

[x + y for (x, y) in zip(a, b)]

Jul 24 '05 #4
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 23:35 +0200, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
In <ma***************************************@python. org>, Soeren
Sonnenburg wrote:
Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

a=[1,2,3]
> b=[4,5,6]
> a+b

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

Both operate on the lists themselves and not on their contents. Quite

But why ?? Why not have them operate on content, like is done on
*arrays ?

Soeren

Jul 24 '05 #5
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 13:36 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:30:02 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:
* and + are not array operations, they are list operations.

Lists in Python can contain anything, not just numeric values.

That seems to be *the point*. Although list(a) + list(b) could create a
list [ a[0]+b[0], ...] and bail out if for elements '+' is not
defined...
Python doesn't have built-in mathematical arrays, otherwise known as
matrices. There are modules that do that, but I haven't used them. Google
on Numeric Python.

Well I am aware of that but I don't understand the reasons of having
both lists (which are infect arrays) and *arrays ? *I* would rather drop
'+' and '*' to work like they do in *array ...

Soeren

Jul 24 '05 #6
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 20:25 -0700, Dan Bishop wrote:
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

a=[1,2,3]
>> b=[4,5,6]
>> a+b

[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

instead of what I would have expected:
[5,7,9]

To get what you expected, use

[x + y for (x, y) in zip(a, b)]

Thanks for this suggestion, however I am interested in understanding the
design decision here... I could aswell just use numarray and get the
wanted a+b by:

from numarray import *
a=array([1,2,3])
b=array([1,2,3])
a+b
array([2, 4, 6])

Soeren

Jul 24 '05 #7
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 13:36 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:30:02 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:
* and + are not array operations, they are list operations.

Lists in Python can contain anything, not just numeric values.

That seems to be *the point*.

Whose point? If you mean that you want to be able to use arbitrary
objects in an array, then look in numarray.objects for an array type
that handles arbitrary Python objects.
Although list(a) + list(b) could create a
list [ a[0]+b[0], ...] and bail out if for elements '+' is not
defined...
Unlike the current situation, where a+b always works consistently
despite the contents, despite how long the lists are.
Python doesn't have built-in mathematical arrays, otherwise known as
matrices. There are modules that do that, but I haven't used them. Google
on Numeric Python.

Well I am aware of that but I don't understand the reasons of having
both lists (which are infect arrays)

They "are in [fact] arrays" only in the sense that they are containers
of objects with a contiguous layout in memory. That doesn't imply either
set of semantics for + and * operators.
and *arrays ?
They're good at different things. Arrays like Numeric/numarray are
harder to implement than the builtin lists.
*I* would rather drop
'+' and '*' to work like they do in *array ...

Tough. It's 14 years or so too late to make that change.

--
Robert Kern
rk***@ucsd.edu

"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter

Jul 24 '05 #8

Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 13:36 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:30:02 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
Hi all,

Just having started with python, I feel that simple array operations '*'
array:

* and + are not array operations, they are list operations.

Lists in Python can contain anything, not just numeric values.

That seems to be *the point*. Although list(a) + list(b) could create a
list [ a[0]+b[0], ...] and bail out if for elements '+' is not
defined...
Python doesn't have built-in mathematical arrays, otherwise known as
matrices. There are modules that do that, but I haven't used them. Google
on Numeric Python.

Well I am aware of that but I don't understand the reasons of having
both lists (which are infect arrays) and *arrays ? *I* would rather drop
'+' and '*' to work like they do in *array ...

The number of programmers who do operations on mathematical arrays is
pretty small. The number of programmers who need to do things like
concatenate lists is much larger. Thus, the decision was made to use
the valuable operator for the more common thing.

Truth be told, I rarely use + on lists (I tend to use list.extend
operations, I don't think it would have affected the overall quality of
Python too much. But, as it's been said, it's a little late to change
it now.
--
CARL BANKS

Jul 24 '05 #9
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 23:35 +0200, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote:
Both operate on the lists themselves and not on their contents. Quite
But why ?? Why not have them operate on content, like is done on
*arrays ?

Because they're lists, not arrays. What do you propose that the
following do:

[1,2,3] + [4,5,6]
[1,2] + [3,4,5]
[1,2] + [{3:4,5:6}]
dict_var_1.keys() + dict_var_2.keys()
[g(3) for g in [f1 f2 f3] + [f4 f5 f6]]

I point out that the idiom is <list> + <list>, not <numbers> +
<numbers>. Operations on lists must deal with them as lists, not lists
of any specific type.
Jul 24 '05 #10
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 11:50 -0700, Robert Kern wrote:
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote:
On Sun, 2005-07-24 at 13:36 +1000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:30:02 +0200, Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: [...]Lists in Python can contain anything, not just numeric values.

That seems to be *the point*.

Whose point? If you mean that you want to be able to use arbitrary
objects in an array, then look in numarray.objects for an array type
that handles arbitrary Python objects.

Well, one cannot efficiently deal with these 'list-arrays' as they can
contain different data types (typechecking necessary; atlas etc won't
work).

[...]
*I* would rather drop
'+' and '*' to work like they do in *array ...

Tough. It's 14 years or so too late to make that change.

Ok got it.

A seperate array type which can only contain objects of the same type
simply makes sense.

Soeren

Jul 26 '05 #11
Thanks a lot for all the answers!!

Soeren

Jul 26 '05 #12

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.