On May 25, 2009, at 9:15 PM, Matt Knox wrote: > <josef.pktd <at> gmail.com> writes: > >> So, while python won't get any "industrial strength" finance package, >> a more modest "designer package" would be feasible, if there were any >> interest in it (which I haven't seen). >> >> ... >> >> The even more modest question is whether we would want to match open >> office in it's finance part. >> >> These are pretty different use cases from those use cases where you >> have quantlib all set up and running. >> > > As you have hinted, the scope of what will/should be covered with > numpy > financial functions needs to be defined better before putting more > such > functions into numpy. If that scope turns out to be something > comparable to > what excel or openoffice offers, that's fine, but I think a > maturation period > outside the numpy core (in the form of a scikit or otherwise) would > be still > be a good idea to avoid getting stuck with a poorly thought out API.
+1 for a maturation period outside the numpy core. > > > As for my personal feelings on how much financial functionality > numpy/scipy > should offer... I would agree that QuantLib-like functionality is > far beyond > what numpy can/should try to achieve. More basic functionality like > OpenOffice > or Excel probably seems about right. Although maybe it is more > appropriate for > scipy than numpy. +1 for something outside numpy. Even OpenOffice or Excel financial capability might, perhaps, go into scipy, but why not have it optional? -r _______________________________________________ Numpy-discussion mailing list Numpy-discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion