On 01/05/18 00:38, Eric Wieser wrote:
I think I’m -1 on this - this just makes things harder on the implementers of |_array_ufunc__| who now might have to work out which signature matches. I’d prefer the solution where |np.matmul| is a wrapper around one of three gufuncs (or maybe just around one with axis insertion) - this is similar to how np.linalg already works.
Eric
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 at 14:34 Stephan Hoyer
mailto:shoyer@gmail.com> wrote: On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:48 AM Matti Picus
mailto:matti.picus@gmail.com> wrote: The proposed solution to issue #9029 is to extend the meaning of a signature so "syntax like (n?,k),(k,m?)->(n?,m?) could mean that n and m are optional dimensions; if missing in the input, they're treated as 1, and then dropped from the output"
I agree that this is an elegant fix for matmul, but are there other use-cases for "optional dimensions" in gufuncs?
It feels a little wrong to add gufunc features if we can only think of one function that can use them. _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org mailto:NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
I will try to prototype this solution and put it up for comment, alongside the multi-signature one. Matti