[Numpy-discussion] Proposal to accept NEP-18, array_function protocol (original) (raw)

Stephan Hoyer shoyer at gmail.com
Fri Aug 24 19:00:27 EDT 2018

On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 3:14 PM Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

Yeah, the reason warnings are normally recommended is because normally, you want to make it easy to silence. But this is the rare case where I didn't want to make it easy to silence, so I didn't suggest using a warning :-).

Calling warnings.warn (or the C equivalent) is also very expensive, even if the warning ultimately isn't displayed. I guess we could do our own tracking of whether we've displayed the warning yet, and only even attempt to issue it once, but that partially defeats the purpose of using warnings in the first place.

I thought the suggestion was to issue a warning when np.enable_experimental_array_function() is called. I agree that it's a non-starter to issue it every time an array_function method is called -- warnings are way too slow for that.

People can redirect stderr, so we're really not stopping anyone from silencing things by doing it in a non-standard way. We're just making it annoying and non-standard. Developers could even run Python in a subprocess and filter out all the warnings -- there's really nothing we can do to stop determined abusers of this feature.

I get that you want to make this annoying and non-standard, but this is too extreme for me. Do you seriously imagine that we'll consider ourselves beholden in the future to users who didn't take us at our word? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180824/7db6e1ad/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list