[MATRIX-SIG] Follow up: Numeric/Numerical Recipes/Regression tests

[Paul F. Dubois]

LLNL has committed to supporting NumPy; that includes trying to shape up the
source and provide a better package structure, including test routines.  We
agree with your sentiments completely. It only is a matter of having enough
time to get some of this done.

I have the view that the most important reason to strive for reusable
components is not the time it saves you to write them but the reliability of
reusing a well-tested component. Especially in scientific computation, bugs
and non-linear effects are easily confounded.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Duncan <bsd@scripps.edu>
To: matrix-sig@python.org <matrix-sig@python.org>
Date: Monday, February 23, 1998 12:59 PM
Subject: [MATRIX-SIG] Follow up: Numeric/Numerical Recipes/Regression tests


>Greetings,
>
>Many thanks to those who reminded me of the problems
>with Numerical Recipes.  We are aware of many of them.
>
>However, don't let the fact that Numerical Recipes is not
>the best code in the world detract from the suggestion
>that Numeric could use additional regression tests.
>
>This is not a flame.  We have found python/Numeric to
>be in general quite robust, elegant, and extensible.
>In fact, we are using it as the base for just about all of our new work.
>
>However, I would like to have better "peace of mind" in knowing that
>there is a set of tests for Numeric python (and associated packages),
>that are as extensive as those for the python interpreter itself.
>
>Cheers,
>
>-bsd-
>
>_______________
>MATRIX-SIG  - SIG on Matrix Math for Python
>
>send messages to: matrix-sig@python.org
>administrivia to: matrix-sig-request@python.org
>_______________
>


_______________
MATRIX-SIG  - SIG on Matrix Math for Python

send messages to: matrix-sig@python.org
administrivia to: matrix-sig-request@python.org
_______________