[SciPy-dev] [announce] scikits.sparse v0.1, wrapper for CHOLMOD (and hopefully more)

Ondrej Certik ondrej@certik...
Sat Dec 26 03:25:17 CST 2009

On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 9:57 AM,  <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Ondrej Certik <ondrej@certik.cz> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Gael Varoquaux
>>> <gael.varoquaux@normalesup.org> 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
>>>>> think?
>>>> Bad.
>>> Good.
>> 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'
> or
>  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.


More information about the SciPy-Dev mailing list