[Numpy-discussion] suggestion for generalizing numpy functions

[Darren Dale]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris at gmail.com
> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 7:08 AM, Darren Dale<dsdale24 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Now that numpy-1.3 has been released, I was hoping I could engage the
> >> numpy developers and community concerning my suggestion to improve the
> ufunc
> >> wrapping mechanism. Currently, ufuncs call, on the way out, the
> >> __array_wrap__ method of the input array with the highest
> >> __array_priority__.
> >>
> >> There are use cases, like masked arrays or arrays with units, where it
> is
> >> imperative to run some code on the way in to the ufunc as well.
> MaskedArrays
> >> do this by reimplementing or wrapping ufuncs, but this approach puts
> some
> >> pretty severe constraints on subclassing. For example, in my Quantities
> >> package I have a Quantity object that derives from ndarray. It has been
> >> suggested that in order to make ufuncs work with Quantity, I should wrap
> >> numpy's built-in ufuncs. But I intend to make a MaskedQuantity object as
> >> well, deriving from MaskedArray, and would therefore have to wrap the
> >> MaskedArray ufuncs as well.
> >>
> >> If ufuncs would simply call a method both on the way in and on the way
> >> out, I think this would go a long way to improving this situation. I
> whipped
> >> up a simple proof of concept and posted it in this thread a while back.
> For
> >> example, a MaskedQuantity would implement a method like __gfunc_pre__ to
> >> check the validity of the units operation etc, and would then call
> >> MaskedArray.__gfunc_pre__ (if defined) to determine the domain etc.
> >> __gfunc_pre__ would return a dict containing any metadata the subclasses
> >> wish to provide based on the inputs, and that dict would be passed along
> >> with the inputs, output and context to __gfunc_post__, so postprocessing
> can
> >> be done (__gfunc_post__ replacing __array_wrap__).
> >>
> >> Of course, packages like MaskedArray may still wish to reimplement
> ufuncs,
> >> like Eric Firing is investigating right now. The point is that classes
> that
> >> dont care about the implementation of ufuncs, that only need to provide
> >> metadata based on the inputs and the output, can do so using this
> mechanism
> >> and can build upon other specialized arrays.
> >>
> >> I would really appreciate input from numpy developers and other
> interested
> >> parties. I would like to continue developing the Quantities package this
> >> summer, and have been approached by numerous people interested in using
> >> Quantities with sage, sympy, matplotlib. But I would prefer to improve
> the
> >> ufunc mechanism (or establish that there is no interest among the
> community
> >> to do so) so I can improve the package (or limit its scope) before
> making an
> >> official announcement.
> >
> > There was some discussion of this proposal to allow better interaction of
> > ufuncs with ndarray subclasses in another thread (Plans for numpy-1.4.0
> and
> > scipy-0.8.0) and the comments were encouraging. I have been trying to
> gather
> > feedback as to whether the numpy devs were receptive to the idea, and it
> > seems the answer is tentatively yes, although there were questions about
> who
> > would actually write the code. I guess I have not made clear that I
> intend
> > to write the implementation and tests. I gained some familiarity with the
> > relevant code while squashing a few bugs for numpy-1.3, but it would be
> > helpful if someone else who is familiar with the existing __array_wrap__
> > machinery would be willing to discuss this proposal in more detail and
> offer
> > constructive criticism along the way. Is anyone willing?
> >
>
> I think Travis would be the only one familiar with that code and that
> would be from a couple of years back when he wrote it. Most of us have
> followed the same route as yourself, finding our way into the code by
> squashing bugs.
>
>
Do you mean that you would require Travis to sign off on the implementation
(assuming he would agree to review my work)? I would really like to avoid a
situation where I invest the time and then the code bitrots because I can't
find a route to committing it to svn.


Darren
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20090624/f1d75a7a/attachment.html>