[Numpy-discussion] Generalized ufuncs?

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Mon Aug 18 11:32:08 CDT 2008

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Travis E. Oliphant <oliphant@enthought.com
> wrote:

> > The good news is that the patch just uses of the existing code to deal
> with all the tricky issues (this is why the patch is so short).  By the way,
> sort could be implemented with the proposed specifications, its signature
> would be "(i)->(i)".  I agree that it would be nice if that code could be
> made somewhat clearer; however, I think that this task is orthogonal to the
> generalized ufuncs patch, because there is no code overlap.
> >
> I agree with this.
> > The way the suggested implementation basically works is to remove the
> "core dimensions" from the input/output arrays, and then have the existing
> code handle all the intricacies over the "loop" dimensions.
> >
> > Reduce methods are currently not supported (an error is raised).
>  Therefore, the current patch does not forestall anything and the desired
> functionality can be added whenever it is clear what would be best.
> >
> > I do not think that it would makes sense to specify/implement all
> possible extensions, optimizations, concrete ufuncs, morphing of existing
> numpy functions to ufuncs, etc. at once; presumably it is much better to
> start with a small but extremely flexible specification of generalized
> ufuncs first.
> >
> One of the key reasons I'm enthused about the patch is because it's so
> small.   By enhancing the ufunc object and without changing the
> signature of the underlying function, the patch is able to implement the
> general description of a generalized ufunc.
> I think it is useful to evaluate whether or not a few more changes will
> allow more functionality with little cost, but I don't think it is worth
> holding up the patch hoping that the code will get "cleaned-up" (which
> all code needs according to somebody's definition of cleaning).

I think the plan is that 1.2.1 will come out before the end of the year and
it would be reasonable to put the patch in there. As gen_ufuncs are
currently unused there is no practical effect to waiting until after the 1.2

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://projects.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20080818/6e5e4e3f/attachment-0001.html 

More information about the Numpy-discussion mailing list