![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/96dd777e397ab128fedab46af97a3a4a.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi All, The possibility of disabling default creation of object arrays has come up again. I'm wondering if one way to get there is to allow generic dtypes. The `numpy/core/numerictypes.py` module defines a hierarchy, and if we could allow things like `dtype=integer` or `dtype=no_object` and such we would gain more control over the resulting array types. At some point we could make `no_object` the default if we so desired. Thoughts? Chuck
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4f6d4f8b501cb05fd054944a166a121.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hey, On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 11:35 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
personally, that is what I am currently thinking along. I was calling them AbstractDTypes. These would also (probably mainly) be used for type promotion during ufunc calls (ufunc type resolution). OTOH, for `no_object` itself, I feel it would be OK with just special case it, since the I do believe the plan should be to deprecate it. I have to think a bit about how "flexible" dtypes come in (and value based promotion, which is a bit of a funny beast). I would like to plan a zoom meeting beginning of next week to discuss this type of thing a bit more. Maybe Monday at 11 California time, but right now I am very flexible, so whoever would be interested, feel free to shoot me a mail to move things. Not sure how concrete things will be, but without talking about it, it is difficult for me to settle design ideas a bit more. Best, Sebastian
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1198e2d145718c841565712312e04227.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Sebastian; all: I plan to attend the dtype meeting. Monday 11 AM California time is fine for me. Best regards, Hameer Abbasi Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: NumPy-Discussion <numpy-discussion-bounces+einstein.edison=gmail.com@python.org> on behalf of Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:23 pm To: numpy-discussion@python.org Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adding generic dtypes Hey, On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 11:35 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
personally, that is what I am currently thinking along. I was calling them AbstractDTypes. These would also (probably mainly) be used for type promotion during ufunc calls (ufunc type resolution). OTOH, for `no_object` itself, I feel it would be OK with just special case it, since the I do believe the plan should be to deprecate it. I have to think a bit about how "flexible" dtypes come in (and value based promotion, which is a bit of a funny beast). I would like to plan a zoom meeting beginning of next week to discuss this type of thing a bit more. Maybe Monday at 11 California time, but right now I am very flexible, so whoever would be interested, feel free to shoot me a mail to move things. Not sure how concrete things will be, but without talking about it, it is difficult for me to settle design ideas a bit more. Best, Sebastian
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4f6d4f8b501cb05fd054944a166a121.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Hameer, all, sorry for the super late follow-up. Not that there is any content, but I just put this up quickly: https://hackmd.io/xSYBZI-cQ-etapoExfM1Cg a bit also because I am not sure if the zoom link will work, so I want to be able to update it. See you, Sebastian On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 18:34 +0000, Hameer Abbasi wrote:
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4f6d4f8b501cb05fd054944a166a121.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hey, On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 11:35 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
personally, that is what I am currently thinking along. I was calling them AbstractDTypes. These would also (probably mainly) be used for type promotion during ufunc calls (ufunc type resolution). OTOH, for `no_object` itself, I feel it would be OK with just special case it, since the I do believe the plan should be to deprecate it. I have to think a bit about how "flexible" dtypes come in (and value based promotion, which is a bit of a funny beast). I would like to plan a zoom meeting beginning of next week to discuss this type of thing a bit more. Maybe Monday at 11 California time, but right now I am very flexible, so whoever would be interested, feel free to shoot me a mail to move things. Not sure how concrete things will be, but without talking about it, it is difficult for me to settle design ideas a bit more. Best, Sebastian
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/1198e2d145718c841565712312e04227.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Sebastian; all: I plan to attend the dtype meeting. Monday 11 AM California time is fine for me. Best regards, Hameer Abbasi Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> ________________________________ From: NumPy-Discussion <numpy-discussion-bounces+einstein.edison=gmail.com@python.org> on behalf of Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2019 11:23 pm To: numpy-discussion@python.org Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Adding generic dtypes Hey, On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 11:35 -0600, Charles R Harris wrote:
personally, that is what I am currently thinking along. I was calling them AbstractDTypes. These would also (probably mainly) be used for type promotion during ufunc calls (ufunc type resolution). OTOH, for `no_object` itself, I feel it would be OK with just special case it, since the I do believe the plan should be to deprecate it. I have to think a bit about how "flexible" dtypes come in (and value based promotion, which is a bit of a funny beast). I would like to plan a zoom meeting beginning of next week to discuss this type of thing a bit more. Maybe Monday at 11 California time, but right now I am very flexible, so whoever would be interested, feel free to shoot me a mail to move things. Not sure how concrete things will be, but without talking about it, it is difficult for me to settle design ideas a bit more. Best, Sebastian
![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/b4f6d4f8b501cb05fd054944a166a121.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
Hi Hameer, all, sorry for the super late follow-up. Not that there is any content, but I just put this up quickly: https://hackmd.io/xSYBZI-cQ-etapoExfM1Cg a bit also because I am not sure if the zoom link will work, so I want to be able to update it. See you, Sebastian On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 18:34 +0000, Hameer Abbasi wrote:
participants (3)
-
Charles R Harris
-
Hameer Abbasi
-
Sebastian Berg