[Numpy-discussion] Proposal: NEP 41 -- First step towards a new Datatype System
cmeyer1969 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 17 19:50:02 EDT 2020
> My only caveat is that I don’t think tracking physical units should be a primary use case. Units are fundamentally different than data types, even though there are libraries out there that treat them more like data types.
> I strongly disagree. Right now, you need to implement a custom container to handle units, which makes it exceedingly difficult to then properly interact with other array_like objects, like dask, pandas, and xarray; handling units is completely orthogonal to handling slicing operations, data access, etc. so having to implement a container is overkill. Unit information describes information about the type of each of the elements within an array, including describing how operations between individual elements work. This sounds exactly like a dtype to me.
Yes I see your point.
> Finally, units may be different for each axis in multidimensional data. For instance, we want a float32 array with two dimensions with the units on one dimension being time and the other dimension being spatial. (3 seconds x 50 nm).
> The units for an array describe the elements *within* the array, they would have nothing to do with the dimensions. So for an array of image data, e.g. brightness temperatures, you would have physical units (e.g. Kelvin). You would have separate arrays of coordinates describing the spatial extent of the data along the relevant dimensions--each of these arrays of coordinates would have their own physical quantity information.
Again, you are correct. I’m asking for similar metadata attached to the data shape rather than the data type.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion