I think this sounds like a great idea. The lowest level that makes sense is the correct place for them.
-Travis On Sep 17, 2011, at 1:52 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > I'd like to start a discussion about modifications to lstsq to accommodate > the new masked arrays and move weights, scaling, and covariance determination > down to a lower common level. This is motivated by Travis' recent changes to > polyfit as well as my own various polynomial fits that also allow weights. > Also, once these features are pushed down to lstsq, it should be possible to > push them down further into a c-wrapper for the LAPACK routines, which is > where I really think they belong in the long run. > > Because missing values will effect the std/var/cov in the same way as weights > of zero, I think support for missing values and weights go naturally > together. Support for scaling and covariance are less closely tied, but they > are both features I use all the time in practice and having them available > will be useful. It might also be nice to change the return signature, though > this would require a new function. I rather like the idea of returning the > coefficients and a dictionary, where everything not a coefficient gets > stuffed into the dictionary. In this regard see also Denis Laxalde's > proposal, something we might want to be consistent with. > > Thoughts? > > Chuck > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion --- Travis Oliphant Enthought, Inc. oliph...@enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
