[Numpy-discussion] Extending ufunc signature syntax for matmul, frozen dimensions

[Eric Wieser]

I think I’m -1 on this - this just makes things harder on the implementers
of _array_ufunc__ who now might have to work out which signature matches.
I’d prefer the solution where np.matmul is a wrapper around one of three
gufuncs (or maybe just around one with axis insertion) - this is similar to
how np.linalg already works.

Eric
​

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 at 14:34 Stephan Hoyer <shoyer at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:48 AM Matti Picus <matti.picus at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The  proposed solution to issue #9029 is to extend the meaning of a
>> signature so "syntax like (n?,k),(k,m?)->(n?,m?) could mean that n and m
>> are optional dimensions; if missing in the input, they're treated as 1, and
>> then dropped from the output"
>
>
> I agree that this is an elegant fix for matmul, but are there other
> use-cases for "optional dimensions" in gufuncs?
>
> It feels a little wrong to add gufunc features if we can only think of one
> function that can use them.
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180430/f79f702a/attachment-0001.html>