On 01/05/18 00:38, Eric Wieser wrote:
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 <sho...@gmail.com
<mailto:sho...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 29, 2018 at 2:48 AM Matti Picus <matti.pi...@gmail.com
<mailto:matti.pi...@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@python.org <mailto:NumPy-Discussion@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
I will try to prototype this solution and put it up for comment,
alongside the multi-signature one.
Matti
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
