Re: [Numpy-discussion] numarray unfriendly to user defined types

[Tim H. <tim...@ie...>]

Fernando Perez wrote:

> Tim Hochberg wrote:
>
>> I agree that using try/except is probably not worth the danger. 
>> However, I think I'd prefer the inverse of what you propose. That is:
>>
>>     def __mul__(self, operand):
>>         if isinstance(operand, _numarray_nondeferred_types):
>>                         self.__mul__(operand)
>>         else:
>>             operand.__rmul__(self)
>>
>>
>> and of course a dont_defer_to registration function. Hopefully with a 
>> better name. The choice comes down to whether we defer by default or 
>> handle by default. I'm marginally on the side of deferring, but don't 
>> feel too strongly either way. Either one would be a big improvement.
>>
>> Perhaps someone else out there has some profound thoughts.
>
>
> Well, certainly not profound, but here's my proverbial $0.02.  I tend 
> to really dislike separate registration functions, since they reek too 
> much of 'programming by side-effect'.  Why not put the necessary 
> information into a keyword argument to the constructor?  Once a 
> sensible default is chosen, then it can be overridden with 
> 'defers=True' (if the default was False) at __init__ time, for 
> example.  Since this is a class-wide issue, perhaps it may make more 
> sense to handle it via a meta-class mechanism.  But I'm not an expert 
> on metaclasses, so I'll shut up there :)

I actually have no idea how you plan to make keyword arguments work 
here, perhaps you could explain that in more detail. Metaclasses are 
overkill, but a mixin, marker class could be used. That is, when 
designing a class for use with numarray, one would derive a class from a 
marker class in numarray::

   class MyArrayLikeClass(numarray.DeferToMe):
       ....

Hmmm. That's not too bad. Todd, what do you think about using this logic::

    def __mul__(self, operand):
        if isinstance(operand, DeferToMe):
            operand.__rmul__(self)
        else:
            self.__mul__(operand)


The only case where I see a potential problem is an old-style 
C-extenstion that can't be subclassed. I think that might be a case of 
YAGNI though. Avoiding registration is appealing.

-tim