Documentation helps are always welcome. 

Please make sure to advertise widely, though, that the new Polynomial class 
changes the ordering convention of the coefficients away from the Matlab 
standard.  

I think this will be a point of confusion unless it is carefully documented.  
It's also why poly1d can't disappear (even though it would be nice to make it 
just a wrapper on top of the other Polynomial classes). 

-Travis


On May 20, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Andreas Hilboll wrote:

>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Charles R Harris
>> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com <mailto:charlesr.har...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 9:09 AM, Andreas Hilboll <li...@hilboll.de
>>    <mailto:li...@hilboll.de>> wrote:
>> 
>>        Hi,
>> 
>>        I just noticed that there's two polyfit functions, one in
>>        numpy.lib.polynomial, and one in numpy.polynomial. What's the
>>        reason for
>>        this? The calling signatures aren't identical (the numpy.polynomial
>>        version supports weights), and I couldn't find a notice on why two
>>        versions exist.
>> 
>> 
>>    There are two different polynomial objects, Polynomial and poly1d.
>>    The Polynomial object is part of a newer group that also contains
>>    Lengendre, Chebyshev, etc., and doesn't have some of the problems
>>    that poly1d has. Poly1d is an older implementation.
> 
> I think it would be beneficial for the user if this fact was noted
> somewhere in the docstring of the Poly1d implementation. Especially
> since numpy.polyfit is pointing to that old implementation. When I saw
> the polyfit function in the numpy namespace, I didn't bother checking if
> there's anything more sophisticated.
> 
> I could add the appropriate links in the "see also" sections of the
> Poly1d docstrings, if you guys agree.
> 
>> Oh, and the polyfit function in polynomial.polynomial isn't meant to be
>> used directly, it is mostly there to support the fit class function of
>> Polynomial. See the documentation here <http://preview.tinyurl.com/8289gfs>.
> 
> Ah, okay. Thanks for that.
> 
> Cheers,
> Andreas.
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Reply via email to