to, 2009-09-24 kello 14:31 -0500, Robert Kern kirjoitti: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 14:18, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > > As a side note, should the cheby* versions of `polyval`, `polymul` etc. > > just be dropped to reduce namespace clutter? You can do the same things > > already within just class methods and arithmetic. > > Just to clarify, you mean having classmethods that work on plain > arrays of Chebyshev coefficients? I'm +1 on that. I'm -1 on only > having a ChebyPoly class with instance methods, although it would be > useful to have as an adjunct to the plain routines.
I meant only having a ChebyPoly class with instance methods. Personally, I've always used poly1d instances instead of the poly* routines apart from polyfit. But perhaps this is not how everyone uses them. Using class methods is an interesting idea, though. -- Pauli Virtanen _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
