[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.

-------------- 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