[Numpy-discussion] Odd numerical difference between Numpy 1.5.1 and Numpy > 1.5.1
Mark Wiebe
mwwiebe at gmail.com
Wed Apr 13 18:48:04 EDT 2011
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>>
> here's the rule for a set of arbitrary arrays (not necessarily just 2):
>>
>> - if all the arrays are scalars, do type promotion on the types as is
>> - otherwise, do type promotion on min_scalar_type(a) of each array a
>>
>> The function min_scalar_type returns the array type if a has >= 1
>> dimensions, or the smallest type of the same kind (allowing int->uint in the
>> case of positive-valued signed integers) to which the value can be cast
>> without overflow if a has 0 dimensions.
>>
>> The promote_types function used for the type promotion is symmetric and
>> associative, so the result won't change when shuffling the inputs. There's a
>> bit of a wrinkle in the implementation to handle the fact that the uint type
>> values aren't a strict subset of the same-sized int type values, but
>> otherwise this is what happens.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/master/numpy/core/src/multiarray/convert_datatype.c#L1075
>>
>> The change I'm proposing is to modify this as follows:
>>
>> - if all the arrays are scalars, do type promotion on the types as is
>> - if the maximum kind of all the scalars is > the maximum kind of all the
>> arrays, do type promotion on the types as is
>> - otherwise, do type promotion on min_scalar_type(a) of each array a
>>
>> One case where this may not capture a possible desired semantics is
>> [complex128 scalar] * [float32 array] -> [complex128]. In this case
>> [complex64] may be desired. This is directly analogous to the original
>> [float64 scalar] * [int8 array], however, and in the latter case it's clear
>> a float64 should result.
>>
>
> I've implemented what I suggested, and improved the documentation to better
> explain what's going on. One thing I adjusted slightly is instead of using
> the existing kinds, I used three categories: boolean, integer (int/uint),
> and floating point (float/complex). This way, we get [float32 array] + 0j
> producing a [complex64 array] instead of a [complex128 array], while still
> fixing the original regression.
>
> Please review my patch, thanks in advance!
>
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/73
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
I forgot to mention that Travis was right, and it wasn't necessary to detect
that the ufunc is a binary operator. I think at some point splitting out
binary operators as a special case of ufuncs is desirable for performance
reasons, but for now this patch is much simpler.
-Mark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110413/ab815fe1/attachment.html>
More information about the NumPy-Discussion
mailing list