[Numpy-discussion] Warnings in numpy.ma.test()

[Pierre GM]

On Mar 17, 2010, at 5:43 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:13 PM, Darren Dale <dsdale24 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Pierre GM <pgmdevlist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Darren Dale wrote:
> >>
> >> I started thinking about a third method called __input_prepare__ that
> >> would be called on the way into the ufunc, which would allow you to
> >> intercept the input and pass a somehow modified copy back to the
> >> ufunc. The total flow would be:
> >>
> >> 1) Call myufunc(x, y[, z])
> >> 2) myufunc calls ?.__input_prepare__(myufunc, x, y), which returns x',
> >> y' (or simply passes through x,y by default)
> >> 3) myufunc creates the output array z (if not specified) and calls
> >> ?.__array_prepare__(z, (myufunc, x, y, ...))
> >> 4) myufunc finally gets around to performing the calculation
> >> 5) myufunc calls ?.__array_wrap__(z, (myufunc, x, y, ...)) and returns
> >> the result to the caller
> >>
> >> Is this general enough for your use case? I haven't tried to think
> >> about how to change some global state at one point and change it back
> >> at another, that seems like a bad idea and difficult to support.
> >
> >
> > Sounds like a good plan. If we could find a way to merge the first two (__input_prepare__ and __array_prepare__), that'd be ideal.
> 
> I think it is better to keep them separate, so we don't have one
> method that is trying to do too much. It would be easier to explain in
> the documentation.
> 
> I may not have much time to look into this until after Monday. Is
> there a deadline we need to consider?
> 
> 
> I don't think this should go into 2.0, I think it needs more thought.  And 2.0 already has significant code churn. Is there any reason beyond a big hassle not to set/restore the error state around all the ufunc calls in ma?

Should be done with r8295. Please let me know whether I missed one. 

Otherwise, I agree with Chuck. Let's take some time to figure something. It'd be significant a change that it shouldn't go in 2.0