Re: [Numpy-discussion] anyone to look at #1402?
Gael Varoquaux wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:23:54PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: >> David Warde-Farley wrote: >>> My first >>> instinct would be to look for "logdet", but I would also not expect such >>> a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the >>> determinant. > >> What about having logadet for the (common) case where log |A| only is >> needed, and having the more complex function when the sign is needed as >> well ? > > I was more thinking of a 'return_sign=False' keyword argument. I think the consensus in python community is to actually create two functions when the returned values' kind differ depending on a boolean. cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] anyone to look at #1402?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:26:28AM +0100, Gael Varoquaux wrote: > I was more thinking of a 'return_sign=False' keyword argument. My thoughts exactly. David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] anyone to look at #1402?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:23:54PM +0900, David Cournapeau wrote: > David Warde-Farley wrote: > > My first > > instinct would be to look for "logdet", but I would also not expect such > > a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the > > determinant. > What about having logadet for the (common) case where log |A| only is > needed, and having the more complex function when the sign is needed as > well ? I was more thinking of a 'return_sign=False' keyword argument. Gaël ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] anyone to look at #1402?
David Warde-Farley wrote: > My first > instinct would be to look for "logdet", but I would also not expect such > a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the > determinant. What about having logadet for the (common) case where log |A| only is needed, and having the more complex function when the sign is needed as well ? cheers, David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] anyone to look at #1402?
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:52:10AM -0500, David Warde-Farley wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:56:34PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > So there's this patch I submitted: > > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1402 > > Obviously not that high a priority in the grand scheme of things (it > > adds a function to compute the log-determinant directly), but I don't > > want to release a version of scikits.sparse with this functionality > > while the numpy patch is hanging in needs-review status (since the API > > might change), so it's a bit of a blocker for me. Anyone have a minute > > to take a look? > I'm not someone who can act on it, but FWIW I am very much +1 on this > addition, and the patch looks solid to me. It'd definitely be useful in > scikits.learn, maybe scipy.stats/scikits.statsmodels too. Indeed. The patch looks good at a first glance. Gael ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] anyone to look at #1402?
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:56:34PM -0800, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > So there's this patch I submitted: > http://projects.scipy.org/numpy/ticket/1402 > Obviously not that high a priority in the grand scheme of things (it > adds a function to compute the log-determinant directly), but I don't > want to release a version of scikits.sparse with this functionality > while the numpy patch is hanging in needs-review status (since the API > might change), so it's a bit of a blocker for me. Anyone have a minute > to take a look? I'm not someone who can act on it, but FWIW I am very much +1 on this addition, and the patch looks solid to me. It'd definitely be useful in scikits.learn, maybe scipy.stats/scikits.statsmodels too. The name is a bit awkward, but I can't think of a better one. My first instinct would be to look for "logdet", but I would also not expect such a function to return the log determinant *and* the sign of the determinant. David ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
