On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 21:53 -0700, leofang wrote: > Hi all, > > > Since I brought this issue from CuPy to Numpy, I'd like to see a > decision > made sooner than later so that downstream libraries like SciPy and > CuPy can > act accordingly. I think norm='forward' is fine. If there're still > people > unhappy with it after my reply, I'd suggest norm='reverse'. It has > the same > meaning, but is less confusing (than 'inverse' or other choices on > the > table) to me. >
I expect "forward" is good (if I misread something please correct me), and I think we can go ahead with it, sorry for the delay. However, I have send an email to scipy-dev, since we should give them at least a heads-up, and if you do not mind, I would wait a few days to actually merge (although we can also simply reverse, as long as CuPy does not have a release with it). It might be nice to expand the kwarg docs slightly with a sentence for each normalization mode? Refering to `np.fft` docs is good, but if we can squeeze in a short refresher and refer there for details/formula it would be nicer. I feel "forward" is very intuitive, but only after pointing out that it is related to whether the fft or ifft has the normalization factor. Cheers, Sebastian > > Best, > Leo > > > > -- > Sent from: http://numpy-discussion.10968.n7.nabble.com/ > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion