On Di, 2014-09-09 at 13:52 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > > I'm in the midst of implementing the '@' operator (PEP 465), and there > are some behaviors that are unspecified by the PEP. > > 1. Should the operator accept array_like for one of the > arguments?
To be in line with all the other operators, I would say yes > 1. Does it need to handle __numpy_ufunc__, or will > __array_priority__ serve? > 2. Do we want PyArray_Matmul in the numpy API? Don't care much either way, but I would say yes (why not). > 1. Should a matmul function be supplied by the multiarray module? > We could possibly put it to the linalg module. But I think we should provide such a function. > If 3 and 4 are wanted, should they use the __numpy_ufunc__ machinery, > or will __array_priority__ serve? > > Note that the type number operators, __add__ and such, currently use > __numpy_ufunc__ in combination with __array_priority__, this in > addition to the fact that they are by default using ufuncs that do the > same. I'd rather that the __*__ operators simply rely on > __array_priority__. > Hmmm, that is a difficult one. For the operators I agree, numpy_ufunc should not be necessary, since we have NotImplemented there, and the array priority does nothing except tell numpy to stop handling all array likes (i.e. other array-likes could actually say: you have an array-priority > 0 -> return NotImplemented). So yeah, why do the operators use numpy_ufunc at all? (unless due to implementation) If we have a function numpy_ufunc would probably make sense, since that circumvents the python dispatch mechanism. - Sebastian > > Thoughts? > > Chuck > > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
