Should there be discussion of typing (pep-484) or abstract base classes in this nep? Are there any requirements on the result returned by __array_function__?
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018, 2:20 AM Stephan Hoyer <sho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:54 PM Hameer Abbasi <einstein.edi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Mixed return values of NotImplementedButCoercible and NotImplemented >> would still result in TypeError, and there would be no second chances for >> overloads. >> >> >> I would like to differ with you here: It can be quite useful to have >> second chances for overloads. Think ``np.func(list, custom_array))``: If >> second rounds did not exist, custom_array would need to have a list of >> coercible types (which is not nice IMO). >> > > Even if we did this, we would still want to preserve the equivalence > between: > 1. Returning NotImplementedButCoercible from __array_ufunc__ or > __array_function__, and > 2. Not implementing __array_ufunc__ or __array_function__ at all. > > Changing __array_ufunc__ to do multiple rounds of checks could indeed be > useful in some cases, and you're right that it would not change existing > behavior (in these cases we currently raise TypeError). But I'd rather > leave that for a separate discussion, because it's orthogonal to our > proposal here for __array_function__. > > (Personally, I don't think it would be worth the additional complexity.) > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > 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
