Personally, I have read a lot of accepted PEPs to understand the reasoning
behind them, but if your motivation to justify it now that it has gotten in
is gone, so be it.


On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:33 PM, njsmith <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> In doc/neps/return-of-revenge-of-matmul-pep.rst:
>
> > @@ -165,11 +167,13 @@ For ``numpy.matrix`` objects, ``*`` performs matrix multiplication,
> >  and elementwise multiplication requires function syntax.  Writing code
> >  using ``numpy.ndarray`` works fine.  Writing code using
> >  ``numpy.matrix`` also works fine.  But trouble begins as soon as we
> > -try to integrate these two pieces of code together.  Code that expects
> > -an ``ndarray`` and gets a ``matrix``, or vice-versa, may crash or
> > +try to integrate these two pieces of code together.  ``numpy.matrix``
> > +subclasses ``numpy.ndarray`` so code that expects an ``ndarray``
> > +and gets a ``matrix``, or vice-versa, may crash or worse
>
> Hey Robert,
>
> The PEP's accepted and @ is implemented in Python mainline. It's probably
> not worth spending our time at this point trying to figure out the exact
> best phrasing for describing exactly why np.matrix is problematic in
> different situations.
>
> -n
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/njsmith/numpy/pull/1/files#r11502907>
> .
>