Hi Stephan, Another potential consideration in favor of NotImplementedButCoercible is > for subclassing: we could use it to write the default implementations of > ndarray.__array_ufunc__ and ndarray.__array_function__, e.g., > > class ndarray: > def __array_ufunc__(self, *args, **kwargs): > return NotIImplementedButCoercible > def __array_function__(self, *args, **kwargs): > return NotIImplementedButCoercible > > I think (not 100% sure yet) this would result in exactly equivalent > behavior to what ndarray.__array_ufunc__ currently does: > http://www.numpy.org/neps/nep-0013-ufunc-overrides.html# > subclass-hierarchies >
As written would not work for ndarray subclasses, because the subclass will generically change itself before calling super. At least for Quantity, say if I add two quantities, the quantities will both be converted to arrays (with one scaled so that the units match) and then the super call is done with those modified arrays. This expects that the super call will actually return a result (which it now can because all inputs are arrays). But I think it would work to return `NotImplementedButCoercible` in the case that perhaps you had in mind in the first place, in which any of the *other* arguments had a `__array_ufunc__` implementation and `ndarray` thus does not know what to do. For those cases, `ndarray` currently returns a straight `NotImplemented`. Though I am still a bit worried: this gets back to `Quantity.__array_ufunc__`, but what does it do with it? It cannot just pass it on, since then it is effectively telling, incorrectly, that the *quantity* is coercible, which it is not. I guess at this point it would have to change it to `NotImplemented`. Looking at my current implementation, I see that if we made this change to `ndarray.__array_ufunc__`, the implementation would mostly raise an exception as it tried to view `NotImplementedButCoercible` as a quantity, except for comparisons, where the output is not viewed at all (being boolean and thus unit-less) and passed straight down. That said, we've said the __array_ufunc__ implementation is experimental, so I think such small annoyances are OK. Overall, it is an intriguing idea, and I think it should be mentioned at least in the NEP. It would be good, though, to have a few more examples of how it would work in practice. All the best, Marten
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
