Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Allow lazy implementations to raise from intrinsically eager functions - #652
Conversation
rgommers
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks @cbourjau. This looks like a good start. I added a few minor comments. Then, I think __complex__ should get the same note, right?
My main suggestion for more context is perhaps something that could go in a short design document on lazy/eager, that could be put under https://data-apis.org/array-api/latest/design_topics/index.html. That also gives us a place to add other future lazy evaluation related topics. I am happy to draft that as a follow-up to this PR; we can get this merged first to clarify things.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
cbourjau
commented
Jul 17, 2023
Thanks for the review! I addressed your comments as suggested. |
cbourjau
commented
Aug 15, 2023
Is there anything missing in this PR before it could be merged? |
rgommers
commented
Nov 16, 2023
No, there isn't. My array API review bandwidth disappeared for a bit. In it goes, thanks again @cbourjau! |
rgommers
commented
Nov 16, 2023
I'll need to do this now. |
Follow-up to data-apisgh-652, which added notes to the specifications for `__bool__` & co on this topic.
rgommers
commented
Nov 16, 2023
Follow-up in gh-708. |
Follow-up to data-apisgh-652, which added notes to the specifications for `__bool__` & co on this topic.
Follow-up to gh-652, which added notes to the specifications for `__bool__` & co on this topic.
Allow intrinsically eager functions (such as
array.__bool__) to raise in lazy implementations. Closes#642