I think I’m -1 on this - this just makes things harder on the implementers of _array_ufunc__ who now might have to work out which signature matches. I’d prefer the solution where np.matmul is a wrapper around one of three gufuncs (or maybe just around one with axis insertion) - this is similar to how np.linalg already works.
Eric On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 at 14:34 Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:48 AM Matti Picus <matti.pi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The proposed solution to issue #9029 is to extend the meaning of a >> signature so "syntax like (n?,k),(k,m?)->(n?,m?) could mean that n and m >> are optional dimensions; if missing in the input, they're treated as 1, and >> then dropped from the output" > > > I agree that this is an elegant fix for matmul, but are there other > use-cases for "optional dimensions" in gufuncs? > > It feels a little wrong to add gufunc features if we can only think of one > function that can use them. > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
