[SciPy-dev] MCMC, Kalman Filtering, AI for SciPy?

Charles Harris charles.harris at sdl.usu.edu
Wed Sep 29 16:02:59 CDT 2004

Robert Kern wrote:

> Charles Harris wrote:
> [snip]
>> Just to continue the naming discussion, here are the GAM categories:
> A plaintext version is here:
> http://gams.nist.gov/Classes.plain
> I would suggest checking this file into the docs (renamed to 
> GAMS-Classes.txt or something else more descriptive) and, for now, 
> adding GAMS classification information to docstrings where appropriate.
> For example, scipy.special.kelvin would have at the bottom of its 
> docstring
> GAMS Classifications:
>     C10c. Kelvin functions
> And scipy.special would have
> GAMS Classifications:
>     C. Elementary and special functions
>     C10c. Kelvin Functions
>     ...
> where ... is the union of all the GAMS classifications of all the 
> other functions in scipy.special . Perhaps "C10. Bessel functions" 
> should be in there, too, along with the other intermediate level 
> classifications that apply. It's a judgement call.
> I'll just chip in my two cents now and agree with Perry and others 
> that organizing the source tree according to GAMS is probably no 
> better than an attempt to organize conscientiously. Search is a much 
> better way to find what one is looking for (c.f. Google).
I agree that search and indexing are the best ways to find stuff, but I 
am mostly concerned as to where to commit stuff. Clustering, where does 
that go? Lattice methods, where do they go? How about useful data 
structures or combinatorics? So on and so forth. I think the upper level 
GAMS categories cover sufficient range that most things can be put into 
a directory without embarrassment. As to the detailed breakdown in the 
GAMS sub-classifications, I am not so sure.

> Is it worth devising an inverted index search for scipy docstrings? Or 
> should we just punt to CHM? I would note that the less I have to 
> switch out of IPython, the happier I am.

More information about the Scipy-dev mailing list