[Numpy-discussion] broadcasting behavior for 1.6 (was: Numpy 1.6 schedule)

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Fri Mar 11 08:57:19 CST 2011


On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 7:42 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com
> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 2:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> I'm just going through the very long 1.6 schedule thread to see what
>> is still on the TODO list before a 1.6.x branch can be made. So I'll
>> send a few separate mails, one for each topic.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 8:30 PM, Francesc Alted <faltet@pytables.org>
>> wrote:
>> > A Sunday 06 March 2011 06:47:34 Mark Wiebe escrigué:
>> >> I think it's ok to revert this behavior for backwards compatibility,
>> >> but believe it's an inconsistent and unintuitive choice. In
>> >> broadcasting, there are two operations, growing a dimension 1 -> n,
>> >> and appending a new 1 dimension to the left. The behaviour under
>> >> discussion in assignment is different from normal broadcasting in
>> >> that only the second one is permitted. It is broadcasting the output
>> >> to the input, rather than broadcasting the input to the output.
>> >>
>> >> Suppose a has shape (20,), b has shape (1,20), and c has shape
>> >> (20,1). Then a+b has shape (1,20), a+c has shape (20,20), and b+c
>> >> has shape (20,20).
>> >>
>> >> If we do "b[...] = a", a will be broadcast to match b by adding a 1
>> >> dimension to the left. This is reasonable and consistent with
>> >> addition.
>> >>
>> >> If we do "a[...]=b", under 1.5 rules, a will once again be broadcast
>> >> to match b by adding a 1 dimension to the left.
>> >>
>> >> If we do "a[...]=c", we could broadcast both a and c together to the
>> >> shape (20,20). This results in multiple assignments to each element
>> >> of a, which is inconsistent. This is not analogous to a+c, but
>> >> rather to np.add(c, c, out=a).
>> >>
>> >> The distinction is subtle, but the inconsistent behavior is harmless
>> >> enough for assignment that keeping backwards compatibility seems
>> >> reasonable.
>> >
>> > For what is worth, I also like the behaviour that Mark proposes, and
>> > have updated tables test suite to adapt to this.  But I'm fine if it is
>> > decided to revert to the previous behaviour.
>>
>> The conclusion on this topic, as I read the discussion, is that we
>> need to keep backwards compatible behavior (even though the proposed
>> change is more intuitive). Has backwards compatibility been fixed
>> already?
>>
>>
> I don't think an official conclusion was reached, at least in so far as
> numpy has an official anything ;) But this change does show up as an error
> in one of the pandas tests, so it is likely to affect other folks as well.
> Probably the route of least compatibility hassle is to revert to the old
> behavior and maybe switch to the new behavior, which I prefer, for 2.0.
>
>
That said, apart from pandas and pytables, and the latter has been fixed,
the new behavior doesn't seem to have much fallout. I think it actually
exposes unoticed assumptions in code that slipped by because there was no
consequence.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110311/5ace6361/attachment.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list