[Numpy-discussion] Ufuncs and flexible types, CAPI
Tue Jan 10 10:29:04 CST 2012
[sorry for duplicate - I used the wrong mail address]
I am afraid, I didn't quite get the question.
What is the scenario? What is the benefit that would weight out the performance hit of checking whether there is a callback or not. This has to be evaluated quite a lot.
Oh well ... and 1.3.0 is pretty old :-)
On 31.12.2011, at 07:48, Val Kalatsky wrote:
> Hi folks,
> First post, may not follow the standards, please bear with me.
> Need to define a ufunc that takes care of various type.
> Fixed - no problem, userdef - no problem, flexible - problem.
> It appears that the standard ufunc loop does not provide means to
> deliver the size of variable size items.
> Questions and suggestions:
> 1) Please no laughing: I have to code for NumPy 1.3.0.
> Perhaps this issue has been resolved, then the discussion becomes moot.
> If so please direct me to the right link.
> 2) A reasonable approach here would be to use callbacks and to give the user (read programmer)
> a chance to intervene at least twice: OnInit and OnFail (OnFinish may not be unreasonable as well).
> OnInit: before starting the type resolution the user is given a chance to do something (e.g. check for
> that pesky type and take control then return a flag indicating a stop) before the resolution starts
> OnFail: the resolution took place and did not succeed, the user is given a chance to fix it.
> In most of the case these callbacks are NULLs.
> I could patch numpy with a generic method that does it, but it's a shame not to use the good ufunc machine.
> Thanks for tips and suggestions.
> Val Kalatsky
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion