[Numpy-discussion] Adding to the non-dispatched implementation of NumPy methods
shoyer at gmail.com
Fri Apr 26 11:41:31 EDT 2019
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:10 AM Hameer Abbasi <einstein.edison at gmail.com>
> Here’s how `uarray` solves each of these issues:
> 1. Backends… There is no default implementation.
> 2. This is handled by (thread-safe) context managers, which make
> switching easy.
> 3. There’s one coercion function per type of objec
> - Libraries are only asked to dispatch over objects they know how
> to convert, so there’s no backwards-incompatible break when we add dtypes
> or ufuncs.
> - Conversion can be as simple as lambda x: x.
> - There’s a generic dispatcher and reverse dispatcher per function,
> with “marks” to indicate the type of object.
> 4. Arrays are just one “type” of object you can dispatch over, so
> there’s no repition by definition.
> Hameer, it's great that you are exploring these problems with a fresh
approach! I'm excited to see how dispatching problems could be solved
without the constraint of compatibility with NumPy's legacy approaches.
When you have a prototype and/or design documents ready for review, please
do share them with the numpy-discussion list. I would be very glad to
review them and share my perspective.
That said, please save it a separate discussion thread, given that the
design of uarray is (wisely) orthogonal to NEP-18.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion