Skip to content

docs: clarify the expected results for in-place operations for immutable array libraries #895

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.

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
merged 5 commits into from
Feb 17, 2025
Merged
Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
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
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion spec/2023.12/API_specification/array_object.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ A conforming implementation of the array API standard must provide and support a
- `operator.matmul(x1, x2) <https://docs.python.org/3/library/operator.html#operator.matmul>`_
- `operator.__matmul__(x1, x2) <https://docs.python.org/3/library/operator.html#operator.__matmul__>`_

The matmul ``@`` operator should be defined for arrays having real-valued data types.
The matmul ``@`` operator should be defined for arrays having numeric data types.

Bitwise Operators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Expand Down
7 changes: 5 additions & 2 deletions spec/draft/API_specification/array_object.rst
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ A conforming implementation of the array API standard must provide and support a
- `operator.matmul(x1, x2) <https://docs.python.org/3/library/operator.html#operator.matmul>`_
- `operator.__matmul__(x1, x2) <https://docs.python.org/3/library/operator.html#operator.__matmul__>`_

The matmul ``@`` operator should be defined for arrays having real-valued data types.
The matmul ``@`` operator should be defined for arrays having numeric data types.

Bitwise Operators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -169,12 +169,15 @@ For backward compatibility, conforming implementations may support complex numbe
In-place Operators
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A conforming implementation of the array API standard must provide and support an array object supporting the following in-place Python operators.
A conforming implementation of the array API standard must provide and support an array object supporting the following "in-place" Python operators.

An in-place operation must not change the data type or shape of the in-place array as a result of :ref:`type-promotion` or :ref:`broadcasting`.

An in-place operation must have the same behavior (including special cases) as its respective binary (i.e., two operand, non-assignment) operation. For example, after in-place addition ``x1 += x2``, the modified array ``x1`` must always equal the result of the equivalent binary arithmetic operation ``x1 = x1 + x2``.

.. note::
This specification refers to the following operators as "in-place" as that is what these operators are called in `Python <https://docs.python.org/3/library/operator.html#in-place-operators>`. However, conforming array libraries which do not support array mutation may choose to not explicitly implement in-place Python operators. When a library does not implement a method corresponding to an in-place Python operator, Python falls back to the equivalent method for the corresponding binary arithmetic operation. Accordingly, the guidance above requiring equivalent results (i.e., ``x1 += x2`` must always equal ``x1 = x1 + x2``) only applies when the promoted result type (see :ref:`type-promotion`) equals the data type of ``x1``. When this is not true (e.g., if ``x2`` is ``float64`` and ``x1`` is ``float32``), behavior is unspecified and thus implementation-defined.

.. note::
In-place operators must be supported as discussed in :ref:`copyview-mutability`.

Expand Down