On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
So basically
'chebadd',
'chebder',
'chebdiv',
'chebfit',
'chebint',
'chebmul',
'chebsub',
'chebval',
All just taking 1d arrays with an assumed interval of [-1,1] except for
chebfit, which needs an interval, and maybe cheb{der,int,val} too also
taking intervals. Hmm, before I just had these things as a keyword variable
that defaulted to [-1,1].
Chuck
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
