[Numpy-discussion] Another suggestion for making numpy's functions generic
Sebastian Walter
sebastian.walter@gmail....
Mon Oct 19 02:10:06 CDT 2009
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Darren Dale <dsdale24@gmail.com> wrote:
> numpy's functions, especially ufuncs, have had some ability to support
> subclasses through the ndarray.__array_wrap__ method, which provides
> masked arrays or quantities (for example) with an opportunity to set
> the class and metadata of the output array at the end of an operation.
> An example is
>
> q1 = Quantity(1, 'meter')
> q2 = Quantity(2, 'meters')
> numpy.add(q1, q2) # yields Quantity(3, 'meters')
>
> At SciPy2009 we committed a change to the numpy trunk that provides a
> chance to determine the class and some metadata of the output *before*
> the ufunc performs its calculation, but after output array has been
> established (and its data is still uninitialized). Consider:
>
> q1 = Quantity(1, 'meter')
> q2 = Quantity(2, 'J')
> numpy.add(q1, q2, q1)
> # or equivalently:
> # q1 += q2
>
> With only __array_wrap__, the attempt to propagate the units happens
> after q1's data was updated in place, too late to raise an error, the
> data is now corrupted. __array_prepare__ solves that problem, an
> exception can be raised in time.
>
> Now I'd like to suggest one more improvement to numpy to make its
> functions more generic. Consider one more example:
>
> q1 = Quantity(1, 'meter')
> q2 = Quantity(2, 'feet')
> numpy.add(q1, q2)
>
> In this case, I'd like an opportunity to operate on the input arrays
> on the way in to the ufunc, to rescale the second input to meters. I
> think it would be a hack to try to stuff this capability into
> __array_prepare__. One form of this particular example is already
> supported in quantities, "q1 + q2", by overriding the __add__ method
> to rescale the second input, but there are ufuncs that do not have an
> associated special method. So I'd like to look into adding another
> check for a special method, perhaps called __input_prepare__. My time
> is really tight for the next month, so I'd rather not start if there
> are strong objections, but otherwise, I'd like to try to try to get it
> in in time for numpy-1.4. (Has a timeline been established?)
>
> I think it will be not too difficult to document this overall scheme:
>
> When calling numpy functions:
>
> 1) __input_prepare__ provides an opportunity to operate on the inputs
> to yield versions that are compatible with the operation (they should
> obviously not be modified in place)
>
> 2) the output array is established
>
> 3) __array_prepare__ is used to determine the class of the output
> array, as well as any metadata that needs to be established before the
> operation proceeds
>
> 4) the ufunc performs its operations
>
> 5) __array_wrap__ provides an opportunity to update the output array
> based on the results of the computation
>
> Comments, criticisms? If PEP 3124^ were already a part of the standard
> library, that could serve as the basis for generalizing numpy's
> functions. But I think the PEP will not be approved in its current
> form, and it is unclear when and if the author will revisit the
> proposal. The scheme I'm imagining might be sufficient for our
> purposes.
I'm all for generic (u)funcs since they might come handy for me since
I'm doing lots of operation on arrays of polynomials.
I don't quite get the reasoning though.
Could you correct me where I get it wrong?
* the class Quantity derives from numpy.ndarray
* Quantity overrides __add__, __mul__ etc. and you get the correct behaviour for
q1 = Quantity(1, 'meter')
q2 = Quantity(2, 'J')
by raising an exception when performing q1+=q2
* The problem is that numpy.add(q1,q1,q2) would corrupt q1 before
raising an exception
Sebastian
>
> Darren
>
> ^ http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3124/
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list