[SciPy-dev] [announce] scikits.sparse v0.1, wrapper for CHOLMOD (and hopefully more)
Sat Dec 26 07:37:53 CST 2009
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Ondrej Certik <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Nathaniel Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 9:57 AM, <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Ondrej Certik <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Gael Varoquaux
>>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 04:00:21PM +0100, Robert Cimrman wrote:
>>>>>> I would like to hear some feedback to my original naming style question,
>>>>>> as I face same issues in my projects too. The question is about using
>>>>>> function names that mix underscores with capital letters, e.g.
>>>>>> solve_P(). This style is marked "bad" in the Python docs, but in linear
>>>>>> algebra, matrices are commonly denoted by capital letters. So what do you
>>> Bad in general. (If you mix arrays and matrices it might be helpful
>>> internally as a reminder.)
>>> And I like informative names, where I don't need a book or paper to
>>> follow the notation, and go back to the table of shortcut definitions
>>> or docstrings every five minutes. My short term memory is too short to
>>> remember what A,B,C, P, X, Y, ... and phi, psi, omega,... mean in
>>> different contexts. But this depends on whether you program for
>>> insiders or the general public.
>> I agree with all the general principles here, but still stand by the
>> current function names in this case. PEP8 and all that are a tool to
>> help us write clear and usable code, and should be ignored when their
>> prescriptions don't help us do that. Obviously when this happens is a
>> matter of taste... But here, we're talking about object that
>> represents the factorization
>> LDL' = PAP'
>> LL' = PAP'
>> and we need to refer to expressions like DL'.
>> These are standard names in the literature, used consistently through
>> the docs, and what else can you call the parts of a Cholesky factor
>> that would be more informative than confusing? Esp. since the solve_*
>> interfaces are pretty much expert only; people who just want to solve
>> a positive-definite system won't see them.
> Yes, I agree with you.
I was answering the general question of Robert. In this case, I also
agree, especially because they are methods and not functions.
I finally looked at the manual, which looks very informative.
The only method names, I got stuck with, are
Factor.L_D() versus Factor.LD() and warning with Factor.L()
Factor.L() is Factor.L_inLL
Factor.L_D() is Factor.L_inLDL
and does L in Factor.solve_L() refer to L in LL or in LDL ? or is it
just a comment from a non-expert
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
More information about the SciPy-Dev