On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Pierre Haessig > <pierre.haes...@crans.org>wrote: > >> Hi Charles, >> Le 07/03/2012 18:00, Charles R Harris a écrit : >> > >> > That's a good idea, I'll take care of it. Note the caveat about the >> > coefficients going in the opposite direction. >> Great ! In the mean time I changed a bit the root polynomials reference >> to emphasize the new Polynomial class. >> >> >> http://docs.scipy.org/numpy/docs/numpy-docs/reference/routines.polynomials.rst/ >> >> > Thanks Pierre. > > >> I feel like that the preexisting text was more targeting people with a >> preexisting knowledge of Poly1d than people looking for Polynomials in >> NumPy in general. (Poly1d is unfortunately the number 1 Google result >> for "polynomials numpy"...) >> >> Please make sure I didn't write something completely stupid. Also, I >> tried to include links using :doc: but the editor complains. I hope it >> will work after a sphinx compilation. There is a build bot, isn't it ? >> The aim of the first link is that the "user-in-a-hurry" ends up on the >> best piece of documentation available, namely "Using the Convenience >> Classes" after a short intro. Does this sounds good ? >> > > The buildbot doesn't check the doc build. I've edited a few of the links. > The :doc: link should work I think, but I'll make sure to check when > merging your edit into the master branch. The text looks good. > > Thanks Pierre, that reads nicely. The lack of knowledge about the package is probably my fault, since I neglected to do more than the minimal amount of reference documentation until recently. Undocumented features are ghostly creatures without tangible reality... Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
