*shouldn't the constructor call the lambda with Polynomial([0,1[) On Sat, Jun 30, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Maxwell Aifer <mai...@haverford.edu> wrote:
> 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
