On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 14:18, Pauli Virtanen <p...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > As a side note, should the cheby* versions of `polyval`, `polymul` etc. > > just be dropped to reduce namespace clutter? You can do the same things > > already within just class methods and arithmetic. > > Just to clarify, you mean having classmethods that work on plain > arrays of Chebyshev coefficients? I'm +1 on that. I'm -1 on only > having a ChebyPoly class with instance methods, although it would be > useful to have as an adjunct to the plain routines. > > I have a set of functions that does the first (works on multidimensional arrays of coefficients, actually), but I am open to ideas of what such a chebyschev class with these methods should look like. An interval of definition should probably be part of the ctor. Thoughts? Chuck
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
