Make 3x broadcasting

[oscardssmith]

One of the really nice things about julia is the way you can write expressions in ways that look like regular math (eg x=3y+5z). This currently gets turned into x=3*y+5*z. This is great when y and z are scalar, but when they are array's, it would make more sense for this to be translated to x=3.*y+5.*z. This would allow everything to be fused, and in general look nicer.

[yuyichao]

This isn't legal.

[oscardssmith]

what does that mean?

[yuyichao]

And we pick the dot syntax exactly because we don't want to and cannot do this. (Not at parser level and hard in optimization)

[oscardssmith]

what other way is there to interpret number*array?

[yuyichao]

You don't know that it's number * array.

[oscardssmith]

There are a lot of times when you do. I am only asking for an optimization when the number is a literal in the code and the variable is in a function and has type info known.

[yuyichao]

You never know this at syntax level which is when the "translation" (lowering) happens. Therefore, it's a very hard optimization in inference that doesn't worth doing anymore.

[yuyichao]

And I said it's not worth doing since it's harder to implement, less reliable (effectively bring back the issue of having a set of blessed vectorized functions and not being able to extend the set) and we (will soon) have a more reliable alternative and doing this will encourage people to write code in the wrong way.

[Sacha0]

For the context of @oscardssmith's question, please see #13603 (comment) where @stevengj states

For the specific case of numeric literal juxtaposition ala 3x, it would be possible to parse that as 3 .* x rather than 3 * x. I actually experimented with that in #17623 but reverted it to be conservative. It is still something that we can consider, but I would make it separate from #17623.

[oscardssmith]

does something bad happen if we broadcast multiplication onto scalars? If not, it seems to me that we could just say 3x=broadcast(*,3,x) (no matter what x is), which would fix the problem.

[yuyichao]

It always works like that and it has nothing to do with fusion.

[stevengj]

@yuyichao, the basic question here is whether 3x is parsed as 3*x (the current behavior, non-fusing) or 3 .* x (possible behavior, would be fusing after #17623). See the patch and discussion at 3638e93

[oscardssmith]

Also new broadcast methods for sparse et al. Should remove most of the objections raised then.

[yuyichao]

... OK. sure. I'm not really sure if it's a good idea (it is indeed a distinct syntax but it's less explicit that the user actually want broadcasting/fusion) but that should be possible to implement.

The mentioning of "array vs scalar" at all in the original post was very confusing....

[stevengj]

I think we opted not to do this. The @. macro means that you can write @. 3x+5y and it will change it to 3 .* x .+ 5 .* y for you.

[oscardssmith]

I agree that this makes little sense, especially in light of the decision to make linear algebra the default.