[SciPy-User] scipy.optimize named argument inconsistency

Nathaniel Smith njs@pobox....
Sat Sep 3 12:39:39 CDT 2011


On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 8:42 AM, Skipper Seabold <jsseabold@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Denis Laxalde <denis.laxalde@mcgill.ca> wrote:
>> If you still believe (as I do) that consistency of optimize
>> functions should be improved, I can work on it. Let me know.
>>
>
> +1.
>
> I'd like to see the input and outputs streamlined as much as possible.
> It would also be nice to have a convenience wrapper around all the
> optimizers so that you can use them with one function. You'll have to
> deprecate the old signatures though.

+1

I'm using openopt entirely because by providing a unified interface to
all the optimizers, it lets me easily swap out different optimizers to
see which one works best. Openopt has some neat stuff in it, but it's
a pretty heavyweight dependency to require just for *that*...

-- Nathaniel


More information about the SciPy-User mailing list