On 05/31/2018 04:14 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: > I am -1 on multiple signatures. We may revisit this in time, but for > now I find the minimal intrusiveness of the current changes > appealing, especially as it requires few to no changes whatsoever to > the inner loop function. Multiple dispatch could easily break that > model by allowing very different signatures to be aggregated into a > single ufunc, leading to unhandled edge cases and strange segfaults. > It also seems to me that looping over all signatures might slow down > ufunc calling, leading to endless variations of strategies of > optimizing signature ordering. > > > I had actually started trying Allan's suggestion [1], and at least > parsing is not difficult. But I will stop now, as I think your point > about the inner loop really needing a fixed set of sizes and strides is > deadly for the whole idea. (Just goes to show I should think before > writing code!) > > As is, all the proposed changes do is fiddle with size 1 axes (well, and > defining a fixed size rather than letting the operand do it), which of > course doesn't matter for the inner loop.
Yes, after seeing how complicated some of the signatures become, I think I'm more convinced the custom syntax is better. Allan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
