On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:53 AM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 11:21 PM Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 2:09 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 2:04 AM Hameer Abbasi <einstein.edison@gmail.com> wrote:
> The fact that we're having to design more and more protocols for a lot
> of very similar things is, to me, an indicator that we do have holistic
> problems that ought to be solved by a single protocol.

But the reason we've had trouble designing these protocols is that
they're each different :-). If it was just a matter of copying
__array_ufunc__ we'd have been done in a few minutes...

I don't think that argument is correct. That we now have two very similar protocols is simply a matter of history and limited developer time. NEP 18 discusses in several places that __array_ufunc__ should be brought in line with __array_ufunc__, and that we can migrate a function from one protocol to the other. There's no technical reason other than backwards compat and dev time why we couldn't use __array_function__ for ufuncs also.

Cheers,

Ralf