Skip to content

PEP 646: Add some broader context #1904

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
gvanrossum merged 8 commits into from
Apr 18, 2021
Merged

PEP 646: Add some broader context #1904

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
d793717
PEP 646: Add some broader context
mrahtz Mar 31, 2021
8246260
PEP 646: Fix typo
mrahtz Mar 31, 2021
4522ee2
PEP 646: Add more detail on 'names as types' vs 'names as values'
mrahtz Apr 1, 2021
fd5178c
PEP 646: Fix typos
mrahtz Apr 6, 2021
b70b3e0
PEP 646: Rewrite extra context sections
mrahtz Apr 10, 2021
a184085
PEP 646: Add Stephan's suggested syntex for named tensors
mrahtz Apr 11, 2021
257af3c
PEP 646: Fix typo
mrahtz Apr 12, 2021
d142b09
PEP 646: Fix the named-tensors-through-types example
mrahtz Apr 17, 2021
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
PEP 646: Fix the named-tensors-through-types example
  • Loading branch information
@mrahtz
mrahtz authored Apr 17, 2021
commit d142b09c400d53dac5340117c1b7134bee1ff167
12 changes: 9 additions & 3 deletions pep-0646.rst
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -936,9 +936,15 @@ basically *always* height × width × channels). However, ultimately we are stil
why this is the case.

Can the named tensors approach be combined with the approach we advocate for in
this PEP? We're not sure. One area of overlap is that in some contexts, we could do, say,
``image: Array[Height, Width, Channels]; mean(image, axis=Image.axes.index(Channels))``. Ideally,
we might write something like ``image: Array[Height=64, Width=64, Channels=3]`` -
this PEP? We're not sure. One area of overlap is that in some contexts, we could do, say:

::

Image: Array[Height, Width, Channels]
im: Image
mean(im, axis=Image.axes.index(Channels)

Ideally, we might write something like ``im: Array[Height=64, Width=64, Channels=3]`` -
but this won't be possible in the short term, due to the rejection of PEP 637.
In any case, our attitude towards this is mostly "Wait and see what happens before
taking any further steps".
Comment thread
mrahtz marked this conversation as resolved.
Expand Down