[SciPy-dev] Generic polynomials class (was Re: Volunteer for Scipy Project)

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris@gmail....
Tue Oct 6 15:17:38 CDT 2009


On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Anne Archibald
> <peridot.faceted@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Personally I think that the high-to-low order in poly1d is a mistake,
> > but at this point I think it may be one we're stuck with.
>
> Sometimes I wonder if we shouldn't push a new poly class with the
> other order.  I can't stand that API, and I make actual mistakes
> pretty much every time I use it.  I know I could make my own personal
> wrapper, but I've taught with this code and I always have to explain
> things about it, students make mistakes that puzzle them, etc.
>
>
What else about the API do you like/dislike? I do want to push a new
polynomial class. Unfortunately, the numpy namespace is already cluttered
with the old one.


> Perhaps a new one with a cleaned-up API (and obviously new names),
> leaving the old one for backwards compatibility with a Pending, then
> real, DeprecationWarning would be worthwhile?
>
> If we're the only two people unhappy about this, so be it.  But if
> it's a general feeling, now that Chuck is working on the Chebyshev
> polys, it might be an opportunity to overhaul orthogonal polynomial
> support in Scipy and do it right.
>
> Just a thought from the peanut gallery though, because I'm unlikely to
> have any time to do this myself...
>
>
That makes four people, including myself, who have weighed in and all prefer
the low to high order. Sounds like the way to go.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20091006/8a8f5fca/attachment.html 


More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list