[Numpy-discussion] Binary ufuncs: minimum
Travis E. Oliphant
Tue May 27 15:40:15 CDT 2008
Charles R Harris wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Travis E. Oliphant
> <firstname.lastname@example.org <mailto:email@example.com>> wrote:
> Stéfan van der Walt wrote:
> > Did this change recently?
> > In : np.__version__
> > Out: '1.1.0.dev5211'
> > In : np.minimum(np.uint8(164), np.uint64(12807)).dtype
> > Out: dtype('uint64')
> > But yes, that looks like it should return a uint8.
> This discussion is really moot unless a proposal for how to handle
> different casting rules for different ufuncs is proposed. Right now,
> the type-promotion rules are generic and do not depend on the
> ufunc only
> on coercion rules for the mixed types.
> One problem with a casting-rules-per-ufunc approach is that it
> makes it
> harder to add new types and have them fit in to the casting structure
> (which is currently possible now). Some mechanism for allowing the
> types to plug-in to the per-ufunc rules would be needed.
> These are not impossible things, just a bit of work and not on my
> personal priority list.
> Not everything follows those rules, however. So I have put these
> things up for review so that we can agree on what the are. Of
> particular concern in my mind are the bitwise and shift operators
> which currently work in a counter intuitive manner.
Right now, the only complete description of the rules is the code that
implements them. So, from that perspective, yes everything follows
those rules ;-)
More information about the Numpy-discussion