[Numpy-discussion] question about ufuncs

Pierre GM pgmdevlist@gmail....
Fri Feb 6 16:18:39 CST 2009


On Feb 6, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Darren Dale wrote:

>
> I've been looking at how ma implements things like multiply() and  
> MaskedArray.__mul__. I'm surprised that MaskedArray.__mul__ actually  
> calls ma.multiply() rather than calling  
> super(MaskedArray,self).__mul__().

There's some under-the-hood machinery to deal with the data, and we  
need to be able to manipulate it *before* the operation takes place.  
The super() approach calls __array_wrap__ on the result, so *after*  
the operation took place, and that's not what we wanted...

> Maybe that is the way ndarray does it, but I don't think this is the  
> right approach for my quantity subclasses. If I want to make a  
> MaskedQuantity (someday), MaskedQuantity.__mul__ should be calling  
> super(MaskedQuantity,self).__mul__(), not reimplementations of  
> numpy.multiply or ma.multiply, right?

You'll end up calling ma.multiply anyway  
(super(MaskedQuantity,self).__mul__ will call MaskedArray.__mul__  
which calls ma.multiply... So yes, I think you can stick to the  
super() approach in your case

>
> There are some cases where the default numpy function expects  
> certain units on the way in, like the trig functions, which I think  
> would have to be reimplemented.

And you can probably define a generic class to deal with that instead  
of reimplementing the functions individually (and we're back to the  
initial advice).


> But aside from that, is there anything wrong with taking this  
> approach? It seems to allow quantities to integrate pretty well with  
> the numpy builtins.

Go and try, the problems (if any) will show up...



More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list