Oh, clever... yeah I think that would be very cool. But shouldn't it call the constructor with Polynomial([0,1])?
On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 5:41 PM, Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Since the one of the arguments for the decreasing order seems to just be > textual representation - do we want to tweak the repr to something like > > Polynomial(lambda x: 2*x**3 + 3*x**2 + x + 0) > > (And add a constructor that calls the lambda with Polynomial(1)) > > Eric > > > On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 at 14:30 Eric Wieser <wieser.eric+nu...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> “the intuitive way” is the decreasing powers. >> >> An argument against this is that accessing the ith power of x is spelt: >> >> - x.coeffs[i] for increasing powers >> - x.coeffs[-i-1] for decreasing powers >> >> The former is far more natural than the latter, and avoids a potential >> off-by-one error >> >> If I ask someone to write down the coefficients of a polynomial I don’t >> think anyone would start from c[2] >> >> You wouldn’t? I’d expect to see >> >> [image: f(x) = a_3x^3 + a_2x^2 + a_1x + a_0] >> >> rather than >> >> [image: f(x) = a_0x^3 + a_1x^2 + a_2x + a_3] >> >> Sure, I’d write it starting with the highest power, but I’d still number >> my coefficients to match the powers. >> >> >> Eric >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
