[Numpy-discussion] NEP: Dispatch Mechanism for NumPy’s high level API (original) (raw)

Matthew Harrigan harrigan.matthew at gmail.com
Mon Jun 4 07:28:09 EDT 2018

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 <shoyer at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 9:54 PM Hameer Abbasi <einstein.edison at 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, customarray)): If second rounds did not exist, customarray 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 arrayufunc or arrayfunction, and 2. Not implementing arrayufunc or arrayfunction at all. Changing arrayufunc 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 arrayfunction. (Personally, I don't think it would be worth the additional complexity.)

NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion at python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20180604/f7fef143/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list