On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 13:31, Colin J. Williams wrote:
Todd,
This scheme seems rather complex. The purpose isn't clear to me.
What is the problem which this arrangement is intended to solve?
Bottom line, currently: numarray + another_class --> exception It would be nice if: numarray + another_class --> another_class.__radd__(numarray) Also, look backward at Tim's original post on this subject.
Could I suggest that some scheme along the lines of the Python PEP's be used to set out the Why's and Wherefore's?
Sounds good for next time.
It might also be useful to copy this discussion to comp.lang.python as that newsgroup has people experienced with classes.
OK, I'll stop being a chicken. Everyone, get ready for the sound of a pin dropping on c.l.py.
The problem appears to be Python related rather than a problem of numerical analysis.
Yes indeed.
Colin W.
Todd Miller wrote:
I tried out DeferredToByNumArray yesterday morning and was able to get it to work as planned with numarray and MA. So yay!
Yesterday afternoon, I stopped by Perry's office for a final check, and not surprisingly, there are some aspects of this solution that we've overlooked. So not yay!
Perry pointed out two ways that the DeferredToByNumArray scheme may fall apart as our inheritance hierarchy becomes richer:
1) Imagine not one, but two independent subclasses of NumArray, each of which want NumArray to defer to them. Now imagine them trying to inter-operate with each other. In this case, the meaning of the expression is determined by the order of the operands, so A+B and B+A will either return an A or a B depending on the expression order.
2) Imagine again two subclasses of numarray, but this time imagine B as a subclass of A. Here again, both might want to defer to numarray, and again, A+B and B+A return different types driven by the type order of the expression.
I don't have a solution yet, but am hopeful that more free candy will fall from the sky... or YAGNI. Perry pointed out that similar problems exist for *any* Python class hierarchy, so we're not alone, and perhaps should forget about this until it matters. If someone sees an easy fix, now would be better than later.
Todd On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 19:55, Tim Hochberg wrote:
Todd Miller wrote:
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 18:27, Tim Hochberg wrote:
Hi Todd,
There are three ways to spell "defer to me" on the table (the precise details of each spelling are, of course, still open for debate):
1. numarray.defer_to(my_class)
2. class ArrayLike(numarray.DeferTo): # ...
3. class ArrayLike: _numarray_defer_to = True # ...
I'd prefer a non-registration solution since those are both aesthetically displeasing and leave you open to the situation where a class in module A gets registered by module B, but module C expects it not to be registered and everything breaks. Not all that likely, I admit, but let's avoid the registration version if we can.
I was picturing this as module A registering it's own classes only. Nevertheless, inverting the problem and distributing the registration as you suggested is better.
The case you describe probably will describe the majority of actual use cases, and in fact describes mine. I'm trying to think ahead a bit to cases may encounter as start using NumArray more extensively. Let's hope this solution still looks good in six months!
The other two solutions are almost equivalent. The one case where 3 has an edge over 2 is if I have an object (not a class), I could potentially set a _numarray_defer_to on the object before passing it to numarray without having to mess with the class of the object at all. YAGNI, though.
I was more concerned about the potential impact of lots of multiple inheritance, but that's probably just my own personal blend of FUD.
The advantage of 2 in my view is that it *does* force you to subclass. With 3, there will be the temptation to poke into some other module and set _numarray_defer_to on some poor unsuspecting class. This has the same disadvantage as 1, that it could confuse some other poor unsuspecting module. The correct way to do get a deferred class from a third party module is to import and subclass. This works with either 2 or 3::
import A
class Klass2(a.Klass, numarray.DeferTo): #2 #...
class Klass3(a.Klass): #3 the good way _numarray_defer_to = True # ...
A.Klass._numarray_defer_to = True #3 the evil way.
Version 2 is cleaner and encourages you to do the right thing, so I'd prefer that solution.
Good enough for me. If no one else has any comments, then numarray.DeferTo is where I'll start implementing. Tomorrow.
One more minor thing. I'm not sure tha DeferTo is ideal as the mix-in class name. It was perfect for the registration function name, but I'm not sure it's so clear whether the class or numarray is being deferred to when you say numarray.DeferTo. DeferToMe is more descriptive, but seems sort of slangy. DeferredTo is better than DeferTo, but still not as descriptive as DeferToMe. numarray.DefersTo reads perfect as long as numarray is included but is a disaster if you read it on your own. Below I've put down all the ideas I could come up with
class CustomArray(numarray.DeferTo) class CustomArray(numarray.DefersTo) class CustomArray(numarray.DeferredTo) class CustomArray(numarray.DeferToMe) class CustomArray(numarray.DeferredToByNumarray) class CustomArray(DeferTo) class CustomArray(DefersTo) class CustomArray(DeferredTo) class CustomArray(DeferToMe) class CustomArray(DeferredToByNumarray)
For me it's a toss up between DefferedTo, DeferToMe and DeferredToByNumarray. The first is a little lacking in descriptive power, the second is slangy and the third is wordy.
-tim
[not that this matters much....]
regards,
-tim
Thanks again, Todd
------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/numpy-discussion
-- Todd Miller jmiller@stsci.edu STSCI / ESS / SSB