Hello.
> > [...]
> >>
> >> Then, we could keep "PolynomialFitter".
> >>
> >>
> >> OK for this change?
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > Luc
> >
> Sounds good to me!
Could you please have a look at "PolynomialFitter"? I'm not sure that it is
useful to select the degree of the polynomial at construction, as it
2012/6/9 Luc Maisonobe :
> Le 09/06/2012 02:48, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
>> On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 02:00:42AM +0200, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I'm a bit annoyed that "HarmonicFitter" and "GaussianFitter" suffer from the
>>> same design flaw as "PolynomialFitter", namely that it is po
Le 09/06/2012 02:48, Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 02:00:42AM +0200, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> I'm a bit annoyed that "HarmonicFitter" and "GaussianFitter" suffer from the
>> same design flaw as "PolynomialFitter", namely that it is possible to call
>> the non-overri
On Sat, Jun 09, 2012 at 02:00:42AM +0200, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm a bit annoyed that "HarmonicFitter" and "GaussianFitter" suffer from the
> same design flaw as "PolynomialFitter", namely that it is possible to call
> the non-overridden "fit" with an argument that is not of the right
Hi.
I'm a bit annoyed that "HarmonicFitter" and "GaussianFitter" suffer from the
same design flaw as "PolynomialFitter", namely that it is possible to call
the non-overridden "fit" with an argument that is not of the right type
(i.e. "HarmonicOscillator.Parametric" and "Gaussian.Parametric",
respe
