diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/neps/nep-0027-zero-rank-arrarys.rst | 7 |
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 3 deletions
diff --git a/doc/neps/nep-0027-zero-rank-arrarys.rst b/doc/neps/nep-0027-zero-rank-arrarys.rst index 11ea44dbd..c2c48f45b 100644 --- a/doc/neps/nep-0027-zero-rank-arrarys.rst +++ b/doc/neps/nep-0027-zero-rank-arrarys.rst @@ -3,9 +3,10 @@ NEP 27 — Zero Rank Arrays ========================= :Author: Alexander Belopolsky (sasha), transcribed Matt Picus <matti.picus@gmail.com> -:Status: Draft +:Status: Final :Type: Informational :Created: 2006-06-10 +:Resolution: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2018-October/078824.html Abstract -------- @@ -158,7 +159,7 @@ On the other hand there are several cases that make sense for rank-zero arrays. Ellipsis and empty tuple ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -Sasha started a `Jan 2006 discussion`_ on scipy-dev +Alexander started a `Jan 2006 discussion`_ on scipy-dev with the following proposal: ... it may be reasonable to allow ``a[...]``. This way @@ -186,7 +187,7 @@ Francesc's proposal was:: There is a consensus that for a zero-rank array ``x``, both ``x[...]`` and ``x[()]`` should be valid, but the question remains on what should be the type of the result - zero rank ndarray or ``x.dtype``? -(Sasha) +(Alexander) First, whatever choice is made for ``x[...]`` and ``x[()]`` they should be the same because ``...`` is just syntactic sugar for "as many `:` as necessary", which in the case of zero rank leads to ``... = (:,)*0 = ()``. |