[Numpy-discussion] Seeking advice on crowded namespace.
Tue Aug 17 15:43:41 CDT 2010
On 08/16/2010 10:00 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
> Hi All,
> I just added support for Legendre polynomials to numpy and I think the
> numpy.polynomial name space is getting a bit crowded. Since most of
> the current functions in that namespace are just used to implement the
> Polynomial, Chebyshev, and Legendre classes I'm thinking of only
> importing those classes by default and leaving the other functions to
> explicit imports. Of course I will have to fix the examples and maybe
> some other users will be inconvenienced by the change. But with 2.0.0
> in the works this might be a good time to do this. Thoughts?
While I don't know a lot about this so things will be easily off base.
In looking at the names, I did see many names that seem identical except
that these work just with one type of polynomial.
Obviously cheb2poly and poly2cheb are the conversion between the
polynomial and Chebyshev types - similarly leg2poly and poly2leg for the
polynomial and Legendre classes. But none between Chebyshev and Legendre
classes. Would it make more sense to create a single conversion function
to change one type into another instead of the current 6 possibilities?
Similarily there are obviously a very similar functions that just work
with one polynomial type so the functionality is duplicated across each
class that could be a single function each:
chebadd legadd polyadd
chebder legder polyder
chebdiv legdiv polydiv
chebdomain legdomain polydomain
chebfit legfit polyfit
chebfromroots legfromroots polyfromroots
chebint legint polyint
chebline legline polyline
chebmul legmul polymul
chebmulx legmulx polymulx
chebone legone polyone
chebroots legroots polyroots
chebsub legsub polysub
chebtrim legtrim polytrim
chebval legval polyval
chebvander legvander polyvander
chebx legx polyx
chebzero legzero polyzero
However, I doubt that is worth the work if the overall amount of code is
not reduced. For example, if you create a overall function that just
calls the appropriate add function for that type of polynomial then I do
not see any advantage in doing so just to reduce the namespace.
If you can argue that is very beneficial to the user of polynomial
functions then that could put a different spin on doing that.
While I would have to check more carefully (as I don't have time now),
aren't chebadd, legadd and polyadd essentially the same function?
That is, can you send a Legendre polynomial to the same Chebysnev
function and get the same answer back?
If so then these functions should be collapsed into one for numpy 2.0.
Just my 1 cent on that,
More information about the NumPy-Discussion