NEP 42 status

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

NEP 42 status

Lee Johnston
Is the work on NEP 42 custom DTypes far enough along to experiment with?

Lee

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEP 42 status

Sebastian Berg
On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 13:17 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:
> Is the work on NEP 42 custom DTypes far enough along to experiment
> with?
>

TL;DR:  Its not quite ready, but if we work together I think we could
experiment a fair bit.  Mainly ufuncs are still limited (though not
quite completely missing).  The main problem is that we need to find a
way to expose the currently private API.

I would be happy to discuss this also in a call.


** The long story: **

There is one more PR related to casting, for which merge should be
around the corner. And which would bring a lot bang to such an
experiment:

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/18398


At that point, the new machinery supports (or is used for):

* Array-coercion: `np.array([your_scalar])` or
  `np.array([1], dtype=your_dtype)`.

* Casting (practically full support).

* UFuncs do not quite work. But short of writing `np.add(arr1, arr2)`
  with your DType involved, you can try a whole lot. (see below)

* Promotion `np.result_type` should work very soon, but probably isn't
  is not very relevant anyway until ufuncs are fully implemented.

That should allow you to do a lot of good experimentation, but due to
the ufunc limitation, maybe not well on "existing" python code.


The long story about limitations is:

We are missing exposure of the new public API.  I think I should be
able to provide a solution for this pretty quickly, but it might
require working of a NumPy branch.  (I will write another email about
it, hopefully we can find a better solution.)


Limitations for UFuncs:  UFuncs are the next big project, so to try it
fully you will need some patience, unfortunately.

But, there is some good news!  You can write most of the "ufunc"
already, you just can't "register" it.
So what I can already offer you is a "DType-specific UFunc", e.g.:

   unit_dtype_multiply(np.array([1.], dtype=Float64UnitDType("m")),
                       np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("s")))

And get out `np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("m s"))`.

But you can't write `np.multiple(arr1, arr2)` or `arr1 * arr2` yet.
Both registration and "promotion" logic are missing.

I admit promotion may be one of the trickiest things, but trying this a
bit might help with getting a clearer picture for promotion as well.


The main last limitation is that I did not replace or create "fallback"
solutions and/or replacement for the legacy `dtype->f-><slots>` yet.
This is not a serious limitation for experimentation, though.  It might
even make sense to keep some of them around and replace them slowly.


And of course, all the small issues/limitations that are not fixed
because nobody tried yet...



I hope this doesn't scare you away, or at least not for long :/.  It
could be very useful to start experimentation soon to push things
forward a bit quicker.  And I really want to have at least an
experimental version in NumPy 1.21.

Cheers,

Sebastian


> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion


_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEP 42 status

Lee Johnston
I am willing to wait for PR #18398 as I am mainly interested at this point in the process of developing a new DType and then array coercion and casting.

Does _rational_tests.c.src illustrate the new DType?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:11 PM Sebastian Berg <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 13:17 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:
> Is the work on NEP 42 custom DTypes far enough along to experiment
> with?
>

TL;DR:  Its not quite ready, but if we work together I think we could
experiment a fair bit.  Mainly ufuncs are still limited (though not
quite completely missing).  The main problem is that we need to find a
way to expose the currently private API.

I would be happy to discuss this also in a call.


** The long story: **

There is one more PR related to casting, for which merge should be
around the corner. And which would bring a lot bang to such an
experiment:

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/18398


At that point, the new machinery supports (or is used for):

* Array-coercion: `np.array([your_scalar])` or
  `np.array([1], dtype=your_dtype)`.

* Casting (practically full support).

* UFuncs do not quite work. But short of writing `np.add(arr1, arr2)`
  with your DType involved, you can try a whole lot. (see below)

* Promotion `np.result_type` should work very soon, but probably isn't
  is not very relevant anyway until ufuncs are fully implemented.

That should allow you to do a lot of good experimentation, but due to
the ufunc limitation, maybe not well on "existing" python code.


The long story about limitations is:

We are missing exposure of the new public API.  I think I should be
able to provide a solution for this pretty quickly, but it might
require working of a NumPy branch.  (I will write another email about
it, hopefully we can find a better solution.)


Limitations for UFuncs:  UFuncs are the next big project, so to try it
fully you will need some patience, unfortunately.

But, there is some good news!  You can write most of the "ufunc"
already, you just can't "register" it.
So what I can already offer you is a "DType-specific UFunc", e.g.:

   unit_dtype_multiply(np.array([1.], dtype=Float64UnitDType("m")),
                       np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("s")))

And get out `np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("m s"))`.

But you can't write `np.multiple(arr1, arr2)` or `arr1 * arr2` yet.
Both registration and "promotion" logic are missing.

I admit promotion may be one of the trickiest things, but trying this a
bit might help with getting a clearer picture for promotion as well.


The main last limitation is that I did not replace or create "fallback"
solutions and/or replacement for the legacy `dtype->f-><slots>` yet.
This is not a serious limitation for experimentation, though.  It might
even make sense to keep some of them around and replace them slowly.


And of course, all the small issues/limitations that are not fixed
because nobody tried yet...



I hope this doesn't scare you away, or at least not for long :/.  It
could be very useful to start experimentation soon to push things
forward a bit quicker.  And I really want to have at least an
experimental version in NumPy 1.21.

Cheers,

Sebastian


> Lee
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEP 42 status

Sebastian Berg
On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 07:56 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:

> I am willing to wait for PR #18398 as I am mainly interested at this
> point
> in the process of developing a new DType and then array coercion and
> casting.
>
> Does _rational_tests.c.src
> <
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/blob/main/numpy/core/src/umath/_rational_tests.c.src
> >
> illustrate
> the new DType?
>
Thanks for joining the communit call!

The `rational_tests` are still using the old API and unfortunately
there is no great example of the new API, because the API is not public
yet and dealing with "old dtypes" in NumPy obfuscates it a bit.


Let me try to summarize my take-away from discussion and next steps:

As discussed, I think we agreed on the idea of exposing the new API
"experimentally" with the following mechanism:

1. We add a new header, distinct from the normal NumPy headers.

2. This header will use private Python API to achieve:
   - Strict version ABI/API requirements. If the code is updated in
     NumPy we will increase this version. Possible very often.
     A mismatch will cause a strict failure requiring the user to
     "keep up" with the NumPy development.
   - NumPy will prohibit exporting the public API unless a
     `NUMPY_EXPERIMENTAL_DTYPE_API=1` environment variable is set.
     This will hopefully prevent the use in production code even if we
     make a release.

3. In parallel, I will create a small "toy" DType based on that
   experimental API.  Probably in a separate repo (in the NumPy
   organization?).


Anyone using the API, should expect bugs, crashes and changes for a
while.  But hopefully will only require small code modifications when
the API becomes public.

My personal plan for a toy example is currently a "scaled integer".
E.g. a uint8 where you can set a range `[min_double, max_double]` that
it maps to (which makes the DType "parametric").
We discussed some other examples, such as a "modernized" rational
DType, that could be nice as well, lets see...

Units would be a great experiment, but seem a bit complex to me (I
don't know units well though). So to keep it baby steps :) I would aim
for doing the above and then we can experiment on Units together!


Since it came up:  I agree that a Python API would be great to have. It
is something I firmly kept on the back-burner...  It should not be very
hard (if rudimentary), but unless it would help experiments a lot, I
would tend to leave it on the back-burner for now.

Cheers,

Sebastian


[1]  Maybe a `uint8` storage that maps to evenly spaced values on a
parametric range `[double_min, double_max]`.  That seems like a good
trade-off in complexity.



> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:11 PM Sebastian Berg <
> [hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 13:17 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:
> > > Is the work on NEP 42 custom DTypes far enough along to
> > > experiment
> > > with?
> > >
> >
> > TL;DR:  Its not quite ready, but if we work together I think we
> > could
> > experiment a fair bit.  Mainly ufuncs are still limited (though not
> > quite completely missing).  The main problem is that we need to
> > find a
> > way to expose the currently private API.
> >
> > I would be happy to discuss this also in a call.
> >
> >
> > ** The long story: **
> >
> > There is one more PR related to casting, for which merge should be
> > around the corner. And which would bring a lot bang to such an
> > experiment:
> >
> > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/18398
> >
> >
> > At that point, the new machinery supports (or is used for):
> >
> > * Array-coercion: `np.array([your_scalar])` or
> >   `np.array([1], dtype=your_dtype)`.
> >
> > * Casting (practically full support).
> >
> > * UFuncs do not quite work. But short of writing `np.add(arr1,
> > arr2)`
> >   with your DType involved, you can try a whole lot. (see below)
> >
> > * Promotion `np.result_type` should work very soon, but probably
> > isn't
> >   is not very relevant anyway until ufuncs are fully implemented.
> >
> > That should allow you to do a lot of good experimentation, but due
> > to
> > the ufunc limitation, maybe not well on "existing" python code.
> >
> >
> > The long story about limitations is:
> >
> > We are missing exposure of the new public API.  I think I should be
> > able to provide a solution for this pretty quickly, but it might
> > require working of a NumPy branch.  (I will write another email
> > about
> > it, hopefully we can find a better solution.)
> >
> >
> > Limitations for UFuncs:  UFuncs are the next big project, so to try
> > it
> > fully you will need some patience, unfortunately.
> >
> > But, there is some good news!  You can write most of the "ufunc"
> > already, you just can't "register" it.
> > So what I can already offer you is a "DType-specific UFunc", e.g.:
> >
> >    unit_dtype_multiply(np.array([1.], dtype=Float64UnitDType("m")),
> >                        np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("s")))
> >
> > And get out `np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("m s"))`.
> >
> > But you can't write `np.multiple(arr1, arr2)` or `arr1 * arr2` yet.
> > Both registration and "promotion" logic are missing.
> >
> > I admit promotion may be one of the trickiest things, but trying
> > this a
> > bit might help with getting a clearer picture for promotion as
> > well.
> >
> >
> > The main last limitation is that I did not replace or create
> > "fallback"
> > solutions and/or replacement for the legacy `dtype->f-><slots>`
> > yet.
> > This is not a serious limitation for experimentation, though.  It
> > might
> > even make sense to keep some of them around and replace them
> > slowly.
> >
> >
> > And of course, all the small issues/limitations that are not fixed
> > because nobody tried yet...
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope this doesn't scare you away, or at least not for long :/. 
> > It
> > could be very useful to start experimentation soon to push things
> > forward a bit quicker.  And I really want to have at least an
> > experimental version in NumPy 1.21.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sebastian
> >
> >
> > > Lee
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> >
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEP 42 status – Store quantity in a NumPy array and convert it :)

Sebastian Berg
On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 17:12 -0500, Sebastian Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 07:56 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:

<snip>

> 3. In parallel, I will create a small "toy" DType based on that
>    experimental API.  Probably in a separate repo (in the NumPy
>    organization?).
>

So this is started. What you need to do right now if you want to try is
work of this branch in NumPy:

     https://github.com/numpy/numpy/compare/main...seberg:experimental-dtype-api

Install NumPy with `NPY_USE_NEW_CASTINGIMPL=1 python -mpip install .`
or your favorite alternative.
(The `NPY_USE_NEW_CASTINGIMPL=1` should be unnecessary very soon,
working of a branch and not "main" will hopefully also be unnecessary
soon.)


Then fetch: https://github.com/seberg/experimental_user_dtypes
and install it as well in the same environment.


After that, you can jump through the hoop of setting:

    NUMPY_EXPERIMENTAL_DTYPE_API=1

And you can enjoy these type of examples (while expecting hard crashes
when going too far beyond!):

    from experimental_user_dtypes import float64unit as u
    import numpy as np

    F = np.array([u.Quantity(70., "Fahrenheit")])
    C = F.astype(u.Float64UnitDType("Celsius"))
    print(repr(C))
    # array([21.11111111111115 °C], dtype='Float64UnitDType(degC)')

    m = np.array([u.Quantity(5., "m")])
    m_squared = u.multiply(m, m)
    print(repr(m_squared))
    # array([25.0 m**2], dtype='Float64UnitDType(m**2)')

    # Or conversion to SI the long route:
    pc = np.arange(5., dtype="float64").view(u.Float64UnitDType("pc"))
    pc.astype(pc.dtype.si())
    # array([0.0 m, 3.085677580962325e+16 m, 6.17135516192465e+16 m,
    #        9.257032742886974e+16 m, 1.23427103238493e+17 m],
    #       dtype='Float64UnitDType(m)')


Yes, the code has some horrible hacks around creating the DType, but
the basic mechanism i.e. "functions you need to implement" are not
expected to change lot.

Right now, it forces you to use and implement the scalar `u.Quantity`
and the code sample uses it. But you can also do:

    np.arange(3.).view(u.Float64UnitDType("m"))

I do have plans to "not have a scalar" so the 0-D result would still be
an array.  But that option doesn't exist yet (and right now the scalar
is used for printing).


(There is also a `string_equal` "ufunc-like" that works on "S" dtypes.)

Cheers,

Sebastian



PS: I need to figure out some details about how to create DTypes and
DType instances with regards to our stable ABI.  The current "solution"
is some weird subclassing hoops which are probably not good.

That is painful unfortunately and any ideas would be great :).
Unfortunately, it requires a grasp around the C-API and metaclassing...



>
> Anyone using the API, should expect bugs, crashes and changes for a
> while.  But hopefully will only require small code modifications when
> the API becomes public.
>
> My personal plan for a toy example is currently a "scaled integer".
> E.g. a uint8 where you can set a range `[min_double, max_double]`
> that
> it maps to (which makes the DType "parametric").
> We discussed some other examples, such as a "modernized" rational
> DType, that could be nice as well, lets see...
>
> Units would be a great experiment, but seem a bit complex to me (I
> don't know units well though). So to keep it baby steps :) I would
> aim
> for doing the above and then we can experiment on Units together!
>
>
> Since it came up:  I agree that a Python API would be great to have.
> It
> is something I firmly kept on the back-burner...  It should not be
> very
> hard (if rudimentary), but unless it would help experiments a lot, I
> would tend to leave it on the back-burner for now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> [1]  Maybe a `uint8` storage that maps to evenly spaced values on a
> parametric range `[double_min, double_max]`.  That seems like a good
> trade-off in complexity.
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:11 PM Sebastian Berg <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 13:17 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:
> > > > Is the work on NEP 42 custom DTypes far enough along to
> > > > experiment
> > > > with?
> > > >
> > >
> > > TL;DR:  Its not quite ready, but if we work together I think we
> > > could
> > > experiment a fair bit.  Mainly ufuncs are still limited (though
> > > not
> > > quite completely missing).  The main problem is that we need to
> > > find a
> > > way to expose the currently private API.
> > >
> > > I would be happy to discuss this also in a call.
> > >
> > >
> > > ** The long story: **
> > >
> > > There is one more PR related to casting, for which merge should
> > > be
> > > around the corner. And which would bring a lot bang to such an
> > > experiment:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/18398
> > >
> > >
> > > At that point, the new machinery supports (or is used for):
> > >
> > > * Array-coercion: `np.array([your_scalar])` or
> > >   `np.array([1], dtype=your_dtype)`.
> > >
> > > * Casting (practically full support).
> > >
> > > * UFuncs do not quite work. But short of writing `np.add(arr1,
> > > arr2)`
> > >   with your DType involved, you can try a whole lot. (see below)
> > >
> > > * Promotion `np.result_type` should work very soon, but probably
> > > isn't
> > >   is not very relevant anyway until ufuncs are fully implemented.
> > >
> > > That should allow you to do a lot of good experimentation, but
> > > due
> > > to
> > > the ufunc limitation, maybe not well on "existing" python code.
> > >
> > >
> > > The long story about limitations is:
> > >
> > > We are missing exposure of the new public API.  I think I should
> > > be
> > > able to provide a solution for this pretty quickly, but it might
> > > require working of a NumPy branch.  (I will write another email
> > > about
> > > it, hopefully we can find a better solution.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Limitations for UFuncs:  UFuncs are the next big project, so to
> > > try
> > > it
> > > fully you will need some patience, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > But, there is some good news!  You can write most of the "ufunc"
> > > already, you just can't "register" it.
> > > So what I can already offer you is a "DType-specific UFunc",
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > >    unit_dtype_multiply(np.array([1.],
> > > dtype=Float64UnitDType("m")),
> > >                        np.array([2.],
> > > dtype=Float64UnitDtype("s")))
> > >
> > > And get out `np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("m s"))`.
> > >
> > > But you can't write `np.multiple(arr1, arr2)` or `arr1 * arr2`
> > > yet.
> > > Both registration and "promotion" logic are missing.
> > >
> > > I admit promotion may be one of the trickiest things, but trying
> > > this a
> > > bit might help with getting a clearer picture for promotion as
> > > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > The main last limitation is that I did not replace or create
> > > "fallback"
> > > solutions and/or replacement for the legacy `dtype->f-><slots>`
> > > yet.
> > > This is not a serious limitation for experimentation, though.  It
> > > might
> > > even make sense to keep some of them around and replace them
> > > slowly.
> > >
> > >
> > > And of course, all the small issues/limitations that are not
> > > fixed
> > > because nobody tried yet...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope this doesn't scare you away, or at least not for long :/. 
> > > It
> > > could be very useful to start experimentation soon to push things
> > > forward a bit quicker.  And I really want to have at least an
> > > experimental version in NumPy 1.21.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lee
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: NEP 42 status – Store quantity in a NumPy array and convert it :)

Lee Johnston
Thanks Sebastian, I have your example running and will start experimenting with DType.

Lee

On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 5:32 PM Sebastian Berg <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 17:12 -0500, Sebastian Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-03-17 at 07:56 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:

<snip>

> 3. In parallel, I will create a small "toy" DType based on that
>    experimental API.  Probably in a separate repo (in the NumPy
>    organization?).
>

So this is started. What you need to do right now if you want to try is
work of this branch in NumPy:

     https://github.com/numpy/numpy/compare/main...seberg:experimental-dtype-api

Install NumPy with `NPY_USE_NEW_CASTINGIMPL=1 python -mpip install .`
or your favorite alternative.
(The `NPY_USE_NEW_CASTINGIMPL=1` should be unnecessary very soon,
working of a branch and not "main" will hopefully also be unnecessary
soon.)


Then fetch: https://github.com/seberg/experimental_user_dtypes
and install it as well in the same environment.


After that, you can jump through the hoop of setting:

    NUMPY_EXPERIMENTAL_DTYPE_API=1

And you can enjoy these type of examples (while expecting hard crashes
when going too far beyond!):

    from experimental_user_dtypes import float64unit as u
    import numpy as np

    F = np.array([u.Quantity(70., "Fahrenheit")])
    C = F.astype(u.Float64UnitDType("Celsius"))
    print(repr(C))
    # array([21.11111111111115 °C], dtype='Float64UnitDType(degC)')

    m = np.array([u.Quantity(5., "m")])
    m_squared = u.multiply(m, m)
    print(repr(m_squared))
    # array([25.0 m**2], dtype='Float64UnitDType(m**2)')

    # Or conversion to SI the long route:
    pc = np.arange(5., dtype="float64").view(u.Float64UnitDType("pc"))
    pc.astype(pc.dtype.si())
    # array([0.0 m, 3.085677580962325e+16 m, 6.17135516192465e+16 m,
    #        9.257032742886974e+16 m, 1.23427103238493e+17 m],
    #       dtype='Float64UnitDType(m)')


Yes, the code has some horrible hacks around creating the DType, but
the basic mechanism i.e. "functions you need to implement" are not
expected to change lot.

Right now, it forces you to use and implement the scalar `u.Quantity`
and the code sample uses it. But you can also do:

    np.arange(3.).view(u.Float64UnitDType("m"))

I do have plans to "not have a scalar" so the 0-D result would still be
an array.  But that option doesn't exist yet (and right now the scalar
is used for printing).


(There is also a `string_equal` "ufunc-like" that works on "S" dtypes.)

Cheers,

Sebastian



PS: I need to figure out some details about how to create DTypes and
DType instances with regards to our stable ABI.  The current "solution"
is some weird subclassing hoops which are probably not good.

That is painful unfortunately and any ideas would be great :).
Unfortunately, it requires a grasp around the C-API and metaclassing...



>
> Anyone using the API, should expect bugs, crashes and changes for a
> while.  But hopefully will only require small code modifications when
> the API becomes public.
>
> My personal plan for a toy example is currently a "scaled integer".
> E.g. a uint8 where you can set a range `[min_double, max_double]`
> that
> it maps to (which makes the DType "parametric").
> We discussed some other examples, such as a "modernized" rational
> DType, that could be nice as well, lets see...
>
> Units would be a great experiment, but seem a bit complex to me (I
> don't know units well though). So to keep it baby steps :) I would
> aim
> for doing the above and then we can experiment on Units together!
>
>
> Since it came up:  I agree that a Python API would be great to have.
> It
> is something I firmly kept on the back-burner...  It should not be
> very
> hard (if rudimentary), but unless it would help experiments a lot, I
> would tend to leave it on the back-burner for now.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sebastian
>
>
> [1]  Maybe a `uint8` storage that maps to evenly spaced values on a
> parametric range `[double_min, double_max]`.  That seems like a good
> trade-off in complexity.
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 4:11 PM Sebastian Berg <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2021-03-16 at 13:17 -0500, Lee Johnston wrote:
> > > > Is the work on NEP 42 custom DTypes far enough along to
> > > > experiment
> > > > with?
> > > >
> > >
> > > TL;DR:  Its not quite ready, but if we work together I think we
> > > could
> > > experiment a fair bit.  Mainly ufuncs are still limited (though
> > > not
> > > quite completely missing).  The main problem is that we need to
> > > find a
> > > way to expose the currently private API.
> > >
> > > I would be happy to discuss this also in a call.
> > >
> > >
> > > ** The long story: **
> > >
> > > There is one more PR related to casting, for which merge should
> > > be
> > > around the corner. And which would bring a lot bang to such an
> > > experiment:
> > >
> > > https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/18398
> > >
> > >
> > > At that point, the new machinery supports (or is used for):
> > >
> > > * Array-coercion: `np.array([your_scalar])` or
> > >   `np.array([1], dtype=your_dtype)`.
> > >
> > > * Casting (practically full support).
> > >
> > > * UFuncs do not quite work. But short of writing `np.add(arr1,
> > > arr2)`
> > >   with your DType involved, you can try a whole lot. (see below)
> > >
> > > * Promotion `np.result_type` should work very soon, but probably
> > > isn't
> > >   is not very relevant anyway until ufuncs are fully implemented.
> > >
> > > That should allow you to do a lot of good experimentation, but
> > > due
> > > to
> > > the ufunc limitation, maybe not well on "existing" python code.
> > >
> > >
> > > The long story about limitations is:
> > >
> > > We are missing exposure of the new public API.  I think I should
> > > be
> > > able to provide a solution for this pretty quickly, but it might
> > > require working of a NumPy branch.  (I will write another email
> > > about
> > > it, hopefully we can find a better solution.)
> > >
> > >
> > > Limitations for UFuncs:  UFuncs are the next big project, so to
> > > try
> > > it
> > > fully you will need some patience, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > But, there is some good news!  You can write most of the "ufunc"
> > > already, you just can't "register" it.
> > > So what I can already offer you is a "DType-specific UFunc",
> > > e.g.:
> > >
> > >    unit_dtype_multiply(np.array([1.],
> > > dtype=Float64UnitDType("m")),
> > >                        np.array([2.],
> > > dtype=Float64UnitDtype("s")))
> > >
> > > And get out `np.array([2.], dtype=Float64UnitDtype("m s"))`.
> > >
> > > But you can't write `np.multiple(arr1, arr2)` or `arr1 * arr2`
> > > yet.
> > > Both registration and "promotion" logic are missing.
> > >
> > > I admit promotion may be one of the trickiest things, but trying
> > > this a
> > > bit might help with getting a clearer picture for promotion as
> > > well.
> > >
> > >
> > > The main last limitation is that I did not replace or create
> > > "fallback"
> > > solutions and/or replacement for the legacy `dtype->f-><slots>`
> > > yet.
> > > This is not a serious limitation for experimentation, though.  It
> > > might
> > > even make sense to keep some of them around and replace them
> > > slowly.
> > >
> > >
> > > And of course, all the small issues/limitations that are not
> > > fixed
> > > because nobody tried yet...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope this doesn't scare you away, or at least not for long :/. 
> > > It
> > > could be very useful to start experimentation soon to push things
> > > forward a bit quicker.  And I really want to have at least an
> > > experimental version in NumPy 1.21.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Sebastian
> > >
> > >
> > > > Lee
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion