Hi Stephan,

On Saturday, Apr 27, 2019 at 6:21 PM, Stephan Hoyer <shoyer@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:16 AM Hameer Abbasi <einstein.edison@gmail.com> wrote:
That said, please save it a separate discussion thread, given that the design of uarray is (wisely) orthogonal to NEP-18.

I disagree, I don’t consider it orthogonal: I’m presenting a way to avoid the very protocols being discussed, and I’d like to avoid duplicate work, or making NumPy itself un-maintainable. Please note the text of NEP-18:

The __array_function__protocol, and its use on particular functions, is experimental. We plan to retain an interface that makes it possible to override NumPy functions, but the way to do so for particular functions can and will change with little warning. If such reduced backwards compatibility guarantees are not accepted to you, do not rely upon overrides of NumPy functions for non-NumPy arrays. See “Non-goals” below for more details.

What I’m presenting is within scope, as it’s an alternative method.

Best Regards,
Hameer Abbasi

Are there aspects of your uarray proposal that are relevant to the current proposed revisions to NEP 18? If so, please restate them :).

Of course, here’s my proposal:

We leave NEP-18 as-is for now, and instead of writing separate protocols for coercion, dtypes and ufuncs (which will be needed somewhere down the line), we have a discussion about uarray and see if it can help there. :-)

Ralf and I discussed internally about the possibility of a dedicated call, with all important participants.

NumPy-Discussion mailing list

Best Regards,
Hameer Abbasi