html_url,issue_url,id,node_id,user,created_at,updated_at,author_association,body,reactions,performed_via_github_app,issue
https://github.com/pydata/xarray/issues/7515#issuecomment-1422860618,https://api.github.com/repos/pydata/xarray/issues/7515,1422860618,IC_kwDOAMm_X85UzyFK,1197350,2023-02-08T16:05:13Z,2023-02-08T16:47:59Z,MEMBER,"It seems like there are at least 3 separate topics being discussed here.

1. Could Xarray wrap Aesara / PyTensor arrays, in the same way it wraps numpy arrays, Dask arrays, cupy arrays, sparse arrays, pint arrays, etc? This way, Xarray users could benefit from the performance and other features of Aesara while keeping the high-level analysis API they know and love. AFAIU, Any array library that implements the [NEP 37](https://numpy.org/neps/nep-0037-array-module.html) protocol should be wrappable. This is Joe's original topic. 
2. Should Aesara / PyTensor implement their own versions of named dimensions and coordinates? This is an internal question for those projects. Not the original topic, but nevertheless we would love to help by exposing some Xarray internals for reuse by other packages (this is on our [roadmap](https://docs.xarray.dev/en/stable/roadmap.html#labeled-array-without-coordinates)). It would be a shame to reinvent wheels unnecessarily. I would be interested in understanding the tradeoffs and different use cases between this and topic 1. 
3. Pre-existing tensions between Aesara and PyTensor. Since this conversation is happening on our issue tracker, I'll point to our [code of conduct](https://github.com/pydata/xarray/blob/main/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md) and hope that the conversation can remain positive and respectful of all viewpoints. From our point of view as Xarray devs, PyTensor and Aesara do indeed seem quite similar in scope. It would be wonderful if we could all work together in some way towards topic 1.","{""total_count"": 8, ""+1"": 8, ""-1"": 0, ""laugh"": 0, ""hooray"": 0, ""confused"": 0, ""heart"": 0, ""rocket"": 0, ""eyes"": 0}",,1575494367