[Numpy-discussion] Forcing gufunc to error with size zero input
warren.weckesser at gmail.com
Sun Sep 29 14:01:04 EDT 2019
On 9/29/19, Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/28/19, Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+numpy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Can you just raise an exception in the gufuncs inner loop? Or is there no
>> mechanism to do that today?
> Maybe? I don't know what is the idiomatic way to handle errors
> detected in an inner loop. And pushing this particular error
> detection into the inner loop doesn't feel right.
>> I don't think you were proposing that core dimensions should _never_ be
>> allowed to be 0,
> No, I'm not suggesting that. There are many cases where a length 0
> core dimension is fine.
> I'm interested in the case where there is not a meaningful definition
> of the operation on the empty set. The mean is an example. Currently
> `np.mean()` generates two warnings (one useful, the other cryptic
> and apparently incidental), and returns nan. Returning nan is one way
> to handle such a case; another is to raise an error like `np.amax()`
> does. I'd like to raise an error in the example that I'm working on
> ('peaktopeak' at https://github.com/WarrenWeckesser/npuff). The
FYI: I renamed that repository to 'ufunclab':
> function is a gufunc, not a reduction of a binary operation, so the
> 'identity' argument of PyUFunc_FromFuncAndDataAndSignature has no
>> but if you were I disagree. I spent a fair amount of work
>> enabling that for linalg because it provided some convenient base cases.
>> We could go down the route of augmenting the gufuncs signature syntax to
>> support requiring non-empty dimensions, like we did for optional ones -
>> although IMO we should consider switching from a string minilanguage to a
>> structured object specification if we plan to go too much further with
>> extending it.
> After only a quick glance at that code: one option is to add a '+'
> after the input names in the signature that must have a length that is
> at least 1. So the signature for functions like `mean` (if you were
> to reimplement it as a gufunc, and wanted an error instead of nan),
> `amax`, `ptp`, etc, would be '(i+)->()'.
> However, the only meaningful uses-cases of this enhancement that I've
> come up with are these simple reductions. So I don't know if making
> such a change to the signature is worthwhile. On the other hand,
> there are many examples of useful 1-d reductions that aren't the
> reduction of an associative binary operation. It might be worthwhile
> to have a new convenience function just for the case '(i)->()', maybe
> something like PyUFunc_OneDReduction_FromFuncAndData (ugh, that's
> ugly, but I think you get the idea), and that function can have an
> argument to specify that the length must be at least 1.
> I'll see if that is feasible, but I won't be surprised to learn that
> there are good reasons for *not* doing that.
>> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019, 17:47 Warren Weckesser <warren.weckesser at gmail.com>
>>> I'm experimenting with gufuncs, and I just created a simple one with
>>> signature '(i)->()'. Is there a way to configure the gufunc itself so
>>> that an empty array results in an error? Or would I have to create a
>>> Python wrapper around the gufunc that does the error checking?
>>> Currently, when passed an empty array, the ufunc loop is called with
>>> the core dimension associated with i set to 0. It would be nice if
>>> the code didn't get that far, and the ufunc machinery "knew" that this
>>> gufunc didn't accept a core dimension that is 0. I'd like to
>>> automatically get an error, something like the error produced by
>>> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
>>> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
More information about the NumPy-Discussion