[SciPy-dev] scipy.optimize.nonlin rewrite
Mon Dec 8 13:51:03 CST 2008
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Robert Kern <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 12:42, Ondrej Certik <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Pauli Virtanen <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Ondrej,
>>> Mon, 08 Dec 2008 18:43:47 +0100, Ondrej Certik wrote:
>>>> First let me apologize for taking me so long to reply. I wrote this code
>>>> in the first place and I am happy that Pauli has rewritten it. I agree
>>>> with the general direction, but I think this change should not go into
>>>> 0.7.0, as it changes the interface and it is not well tested yet.
>>>> Also, you renamed all the working broyden implementations that I use as
>>>> BadBroyden, so I suggest to name them GoodBroyden, more below.
>>> Quick comment (I'll post a more thorough reply later on). The "good" and
>>> "bad" Broyden's method are names referring to specific ways to update the
>>> Jacobian (at least these were the names I learned here in a univ.
>>> course), cf. also ; they do not really refer to goodness or badness of
>>> the methods, and definitely not to quality of implementation. (If you
>>> meant I had mislabeled one of these, please correct me.)
>>> ..  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broyden%27s_method
>> Ah, ok --- that wiki didn't exist yet when I wrote this. I only knew
>> first Broyden method and a second Broyden method. Well, still I think
>> it's weird to call something that works well by BadBrodyen, but if
>> that's what people are used to, then ok. Do you have some good
>> reference of this, besides wiki?
>> And in any case, all of this should be explained in the docstrings.
> If there's an alternate set of names, I would suggest going with
> those. "Bad" and "Good" are simply going to confuse people.
In fact, I would suggest to use or even invent alternate names, rather
than to use Bad and Good, it's really confusing.
More information about the Scipy-dev