[SciPy-user] question about ODE output and time steps
Thu Apr 26 13:24:05 CDT 2007
I'm willing to work on it, for sure, but I want to get our integrator/
generator class structure in better shape first.
I'm really happy about this line:
+10 ! I have never needed more then odeint, but I hear so much good
PyDSTool that I wish it was in scipy.
Center for Applied Mathematics | Phone: (607) 255-4195
657 Rhodes Hall | Fax: (607) 255-9860
Cornell University | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ithaca, NY 14853 | Web: http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~sherwood
On Apr 26, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Rob Clewley wrote:
> I don't foresee having time to add (probably only some of) PyDSTool to
> SciPy or unless someone would graciously give me a hand. Part of that
> would involve some very specific feedback on the basic classes we've
> implemented and an evaluation of whether they are suitable for general
> usage: in particular, our Interval, Pointset, Variable, and Trajectory
> classes. To bring on board PyDSTool's ODE solvers in their current
> form is also to commit to the use of these basic classes, as there's
> not a trivial way to factor out the solvers without losing some of the
> fancy functionality (e.g., having autonomous external inputs to a RHS
> interpolated from arrays). In my biased opinion, I think that these
> basic classes could add value to SciPy in general, but I'm not going
> to push it until I get a sense of sufficient support from you guys.
> Some technically-minded folks might want to help me improve our
> implementations too.
> Also, the lsodar routine already wrapped nicely in SloppyCell could
> much more easily be incorporated into SciPy with minimal baggage
> Anyway, we haven't yet got around our ugly method for generating
> C-based right-hand-sides in a platform-independent way, which is to
> (mis-)use distutils! We hope to use auto-generated makefiles instead,
> and we have some chance of coding that up over the summer. I would
> think that would be a deal-breaker for having our integrators in
> SciPy, no?
> In the meantime, I would encourage anyone who writes for SciPy, has
> played with PyDSTool, and is curious about incorporating our solvers
> into SciPy, to please continue this discussion with a critical
> evaluation of our base classes (recent improvements are in our SVN
> repository). You can read more about their design and implementation
> at our wiki.
> SciPy-user mailing list
More information about the SciPy-user