On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 9:55 PM Serge Guelton wrote:

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:09:02PM +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote:

...

Thanks for bringing this up again. The Python method exists and it seems like relatively basic functionality.

Overall, I am slightly in favor of adding the ufunc. So if nobody voices an opinion that it doesn't seem a good fit for NumPy, I would be happy to move forward with it.

It seems like there is enough demand, so +0.5 from me.

...

PS: One of my main concern would be if we were to add many bitwise functions, in which case a `bitwise` namespace might be nice. But I am not convinced that should stop us here.

Technically speaking, bitwise_and, birwise_or, bitwise_xor and bitwise_not already exist and popcount is widely spread, it already has its compiler builtin under the name of __builtin_popcount

Those four `bitwise_*` functions also came to mind for me. I'll also add that Python has six bit-wise operators ( https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators), and because of that the array API standard implements `bitwise_left_shift` and `bitwise_right_shift` in addition to the four functions that NumPy has. So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count` rather than `bit_count`. Cheers, Ralf

On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:30 PM Ganesh Kathiresan wrote:

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions! I have gotten the PR to a working state with UT on top of the latest main (PR https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/21429).

So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`

...

rather than `bit_count`.

This does sound like a good idea, but would it confuse the users given the scalar version is called `bit_count`? We could change/add an alias for scalar bit_count to `bitwise_count` but that would be different from the Python `bit_count https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#int.bit_count` added in 3.10. Any idea on how to proceed? I'm ok with calling it `bitwise_count` or `bit_count`.

I don't think it would confuse users. This is not a feature for the beginner/average user, it will have few users right now, and as long as the correspondence is mentioned in the docstring this should be discoverable enough. I'd much prefer no alias, we already have way too many of those and most of them are only noise at this point. Cheers, Ralf

Thanks, Ganesh

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Ralf Gommers wrote:

...

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 9:55 PM Serge Guelton wrote:

...

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:09:02PM +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote:

...

Thanks for bringing this up again. The Python method exists and it seems like relatively basic functionality.

Overall, I am slightly in favor of adding the ufunc. So if nobody voices an opinion that it doesn't seem a good fit for NumPy, I would be happy to move forward with it.

It seems like there is enough demand, so +0.5 from me.

...

...

PS: One of my main concern would be if we were to add many bitwise functions, in which case a `bitwise` namespace might be nice. But I am not convinced that should stop us here.

Technically speaking, bitwise_and, birwise_or, bitwise_xor and bitwise_not already exist and popcount is widely spread, it already has its compiler builtin under the name of __builtin_popcount

Those four `bitwise_*` functions also came to mind for me. I'll also add that Python has six bit-wise operators ( https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators), and because of that the array API standard implements `bitwise_left_shift` and `bitwise_right_shift` in addition to the four functions that NumPy has.

So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count` rather than `bit_count`.

Cheers, Ralf

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: ganesh3597@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: ralf.gommers@gmail.com

Hi all, Thanks for all the great work on this PR on using the CPU instruction for bitcounts. This will be really useful for hamming distance like calculations. I wanted to check if there was anything else needed to merge this PR? It seems like there was a lot of good feedback addressed. https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/21429 Thanks -Doug On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 10:00 PM Ganesh Kathiresan wrote:

as long as the correspondence is mentioned in the docstring this should

...

be discoverable enough

Ah ok, that's a good point. I will make the change. Thanks!

~Ganesh

On Mon, Dec 5, 2022 at 3:21 AM Ralf Gommers wrote:

...

On Sun, Dec 4, 2022 at 6:30 PM Ganesh Kathiresan wrote:

...

Hi all,

Thanks for the suggestions! I have gotten the PR to a working state with UT on top of the latest main (PR https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/21429).

So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count`

...

rather than `bit_count`.

This does sound like a good idea, but would it confuse the users given the scalar version is called `bit_count`? We could change/add an alias for scalar bit_count to `bitwise_count` but that would be different from the Python `bit_count https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html#int.bit_count` added in 3.10. Any idea on how to proceed? I'm ok with calling it `bitwise_count` or `bit_count`.

I don't think it would confuse users. This is not a feature for the beginner/average user, it will have few users right now, and as long as the correspondence is mentioned in the docstring this should be discoverable enough. I'd much prefer no alias, we already have way too many of those and most of them are only noise at this point.

Cheers, Ralf

...

Thanks, Ganesh

On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 3:20 AM Ralf Gommers wrote:

...

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 9:55 PM Serge Guelton wrote:

...

On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:09:02PM +0100, Sebastian Berg wrote:

...

Thanks for bringing this up again. The Python method exists and it seems like relatively basic functionality.

Overall, I am slightly in favor of adding the ufunc. So if nobody voices an opinion that it doesn't seem a good fit for NumPy, I would be happy to move forward with it.

It seems like there is enough demand, so +0.5 from me.

...

...

PS: One of my main concern would be if we were to add many bitwise functions, in which case a `bitwise` namespace might be nice. But I am not convinced that should stop us here.

Technically speaking, bitwise_and, birwise_or, bitwise_xor and bitwise_not already exist and popcount is widely spread, it already has its compiler builtin under the name of __builtin_popcount

Those four `bitwise_*` functions also came to mind for me. I'll also add that Python has six bit-wise operators ( https://wiki.python.org/moin/BitwiseOperators), and because of that the array API standard implements `bitwise_left_shift` and `bitwise_right_shift` in addition to the four functions that NumPy has.

So it looks to me like this new ufunc should be called `bitwise_count` rather than `bit_count`.

Cheers, Ralf

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: ganesh3597@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: ralf.gommers@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: ganesh3597@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: softwaredoug@gmail.com