On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > > Let me see if I understand this correctly. You like the idea of a class with class methods, avoiding namespace polution, but you aren't so hot on having a chebyshev class like poly1d that contains the series info and overloads some of the operators? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
