Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz]

If the author is willing, I'd say both functions are useful. The "geom" 
prefix is very fitting.
- Joe



-- Original message--From: Robert KernDate: Fri, Feb 19, 2016 08:00To: 
Discussion of Numerical Python;Subject:Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new 
logspace without the log in the argumentOn Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:10 PM, 
Andrew Nelson  wrote:
>
> With respect to geomspace proposals: instead of specifying start and end 
> values and the number of points I'd like to have an option where I can set 
> the start and end points and the ratio. The function would then work out the 
> correct number of points to get closest to the end value.
>
> E.g. geomspace(start=1, finish=2, ratio=1.03)
>
> The first entries would be 1.0, 1.03, 1*1.03**2, etc.
>
> I have a requirement for the correct ratio between the points, and it's a 
> right bind having to calculate the exact number of points needed.

At the risk of extending the twisty little maze of names, all alike, I would 
probably call a function with this signature geomrange() instead. It is more 
akin to arange(start, stop, step) than linspace(start, stop, num_steps).
--
Robert Kern___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Robert Kern]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Andrew Nelson  wrote:
>
> With respect to geomspace proposals: instead of specifying start and end
values and the number of points I'd like to have an option where I can set
the start and end points and the ratio. The function would then work out
the correct number of points to get closest to the end value.
>
> E.g. geomspace(start=1, finish=2, ratio=1.03)
>
> The first entries would be 1.0, 1.03, 1*1.03**2, etc.
>
> I have a requirement for the correct ratio between the points, and it's a
right bind having to calculate the exact number of points needed.

At the risk of extending the twisty little maze of names, all alike, I
would probably call a function with this signature geomrange() instead. It
is more akin to arange(start, stop, step) than linspace(start, stop,
num_steps).

--
Robert Kern
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[.]

What about this API?  You specify the start point, ratio, and number of
points.

http://spacepy.lanl.gov/doc/autosummary/spacepy.toolbox.geomspace.html

On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 7:10 AM, Andrew Nelson andyfaff-at-gmail.com |numpy
mailing list/Example Allow|  wrote:

> With respect to geomspace proposals: instead of specifying start and end
> values and the number of points I'd like to have an option where I can set
> the start and end points and the ratio. The function would then work out
> the correct number of points to get closest to the end value..
>
> E.g. geomspace(start=1, finish=2, ratio=1.03)
>
> The first entries would be 1.0, 1.03, 1*1.03**2, etc.
>
> I have a requirement for the correct ratio between the points, and it's a
> right bind having to calculate the exact number of points needed.
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Andrew Nelson]

With respect to geomspace proposals: instead of specifying start and end
values and the number of points I'd like to have an option where I can set
the start and end points and the ratio. The function would then work out
the correct number of points to get closest to the end value.

E.g. geomspace(start=1, finish=2, ratio=1.03)

The first entries would be 1.0, 1.03, 1*1.03**2, etc.

I have a requirement for the correct ratio between the points, and it's a
right bind having to calculate the exact number of points needed.
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Peter Creasey]

>
> Some questions it'd be good to get feedback on:
>
> - any better ideas for naming it than "geomspace"? It's really too bad
> that the 'logspace' name is already taken.
>
> - I guess the alternative interface might be something like
>
> np.linspace(start, stop, steps, spacing="log")
>
> what do people think?
>
> -n
>
You’ve got to wonder how many people actually use logspace(start,
stop, num) in preference to 10.0**linspace(start, stop, num) - i.e. I
prefer the latter for clarity, and if I wanted performance I’d be
prepared to write something more ugly.

I don’t mind geomspace(), but if you are brainstorming
>>> linlogspace(start, end) # i.e. ‘linear in log-space’
is ok for me too.

Peter
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Chris Barker]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Alan Isaac  wrote:

> Would such a new function correct the apparent mistake (?) of
> `linspace` including the endpoint by default?
> Or is the current API justified by its Matlab origins?
>

I don't think so -- we don't need no stinkin' Matlab !

But I LIKE including the endpoint in the sequence -- for the common use
cases, it's often what you want, and if it didn't include the end point but
you did want that, it would get pretty ugly to figure out how to get what
you want.

On the other hand, if I had it to do over, I would have the count specify
the number of intervals, rather than the number of items. A common cae may
be: values from zero to 10 (inclusive), and I want ten steps:

In [19]: np.linspace(0, 10, 10)
Out[19]:

array([  0.,   1.,   2.,   3.,
 4.,   5.5556,   6.6667,   7.7778,
 8.8889,  10.])

HUH? I was expecting [0,1,2,3 ] (OK, not me, this isn't my first
Rodeo), so now I need to do:
In [20]: np.linspace(0, 10, 11)
Out[20]: array([  0.,   1.,   2.,   3.,   4.,   5.,   6.,   7.,   8.,   9.,
 10.])

This gets uglier if I know what "delta" I want:

In [21]: start = 0.0; end = 9.0; delta = 1.0
In [24]: np.linspace(start, end, (end-start)/delta)
Out[24]: array([ 0.   ,  1.125,  2.25 ,  3.375,  4.5  ,  5.625,  6.75 ,
 7.875,  9.   ])

oops!

In [25]: np.linspace(start, end, (end-start)/delta + 1)
Out[25]: array([ 0.,  1.,  2.,  3.,  4.,  5.,  6.,  7.,  8.,  9.])

But in any case, there is no changing it now.

-CHB


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Robert Kern]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Alan Isaac  wrote:
>
> On 2/18/2016 2:44 PM, Robert Kern wrote:
>>
>> In a new function not named `linspace()`, I think that might be fine. I
do occasionally want to swap between linear and logarithmic/geometric
spacing based on a parameter, so this
>> doesn't violate the van Rossum Rule of Function Signatures.
>
> Would such a new function correct the apparent mistake (?) of
> `linspace` including the endpoint by default?
> Or is the current API justified by its Matlab origins?
> (Or have I missed the point altogether?)

The last, I'm afraid. Different use cases, different conventions. Integer
ranges are half-open because that is the most useful convention in a
0-indexed ecosystem. Floating point ranges don't interface with indexing,
and the closed intervals are the most useful (or at least the most common).

> If this query is annoying, please ignore it.  It is not meant to be.

The same for my answer.

--
Robert Kern
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Alan Isaac]

On 2/18/2016 2:44 PM, Robert Kern wrote:

In a new function not named `linspace()`, I think that might be fine. I do 
occasionally want to swap between linear and logarithmic/geometric spacing 
based on a parameter, so this
doesn't violate the van Rossum Rule of Function Signatures.



Would such a new function correct the apparent mistake (?) of
`linspace` including the endpoint by default?
Or is the current API justified by its Matlab origins?
(Or have I missed the point altogether?)

If this query is annoying, please ignore it.  It is not meant to be.

Alan

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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Joseph Fox-Rabinovitz]

I like the idea, as long as we all remain aware of the irony of having
a "log" spacing for a function named "lin"space.

-Joe

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Robert Kern  wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
>>
>> Some questions it'd be good to get feedback on:
>>
>> - any better ideas for naming it than "geomspace"? It's really too bad
>> that the 'logspace' name is already taken.
>
> geomspace() is a perfectly cromulent name, IMO.
>
>> - I guess the alternative interface might be something like
>>
>> np.linspace(start, stop, steps, spacing="log")
>>
>> what do people think?
>
> In a new function not named `linspace()`, I think that might be fine. I do
> occasionally want to swap between linear and logarithmic/geometric spacing
> based on a parameter, so this doesn't violate the van Rossum Rule of
> Function Signatures.
>
> --
> Robert Kern
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Robert Kern]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
>
> Some questions it'd be good to get feedback on:
>
> - any better ideas for naming it than "geomspace"? It's really too bad
> that the 'logspace' name is already taken.

geomspace() is a perfectly cromulent name, IMO.

> - I guess the alternative interface might be something like
>
> np.linspace(start, stop, steps, spacing="log")
>
> what do people think?

In a new function not named `linspace()`, I think that might be fine. I do
occasionally want to swap between linear and logarithmic/geometric spacing
based on a parameter, so this doesn't violate the van Rossum Rule of
Function Signatures.

--
Robert Kern
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] proposal: new logspace without the log in the argument

[Nathaniel Smith]

Some questions it'd be good to get feedback on:

- any better ideas for naming it than "geomspace"? It's really too bad
that the 'logspace' name is already taken.

- I guess the alternative interface might be something like

np.linspace(start, stop, steps, spacing="log")

what do people think?

-n

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:35 PM, .  wrote:
> I've suggested a new function similar to logspace, but where you specify the 
> start and stop points directly instead of using log(start) and base arguments:
>
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/issues/7255
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/7268
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion



-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion