On 08/16/2010 10:00 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I just added support for Legendre polynomials to numpy and I think the > numpy.polynomial name space is getting a bit crowded. Since most of > the current functions in that namespace are just used to implement the > Polynomial, Chebyshev, and Legendre classes I'm thinking of only > importing those classes by default and leaving the other functions to > explicit imports. Of course I will have to fix the examples and maybe > some other users will be inconvenienced by the change. But with 2.0.0 > in the works this might be a good time to do this. Thoughts? > > Chuck While I don't know a lot about this so things will be easily off base.
In looking at the names, I did see many names that seem identical except that these work just with one type of polynomial. Obviously cheb2poly and poly2cheb are the conversion between the polynomial and Chebyshev types - similarly leg2poly and poly2leg for the polynomial and Legendre classes. But none between Chebyshev and Legendre classes. Would it make more sense to create a single conversion function to change one type into another instead of the current 6 possibilities? Similarily there are obviously a very similar functions that just work with one polynomial type so the functionality is duplicated across each class that could be a single function each: chebadd legadd polyadd chebder legder polyder chebdiv legdiv polydiv chebdomain legdomain polydomain chebfit legfit polyfit chebfromroots legfromroots polyfromroots chebint legint polyint chebline legline polyline chebmul legmul polymul chebmulx legmulx polymulx chebone legone polyone chebroots legroots polyroots chebsub legsub polysub chebtrim legtrim polytrim chebval legval polyval chebvander legvander polyvander chebx legx polyx chebzero legzero polyzero However, I doubt that is worth the work if the overall amount of code is not reduced. For example, if you create a overall function that just calls the appropriate add function for that type of polynomial then I do not see any advantage in doing so just to reduce the namespace. If you can argue that is very beneficial to the user of polynomial functions then that could put a different spin on doing that. While I would have to check more carefully (as I don't have time now), aren't chebadd, legadd and polyadd essentially the same function? That is, can you send a Legendre polynomial to the same Chebysnev function and get the same answer back? If so then these functions should be collapsed into one for numpy 2.0. Just my 1 cent on that, Bruce _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
