On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 21:00, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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?
I'm not so hot on *only* having a chebyshev class like poly1d. As I said, it would be useful to have one, but I still want routines that work on plain arrays. -- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
