[SciPy-Dev] FFTLog

[Dieter Werthmüller]

Hi Devs,

I created a pull request for the inclusion of FFTLog:
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/7310

It is missing one crucial point: I still uses the file cdgamma.f which,
as was established in this thread last October, might not be bullet
proof regarding license, and as Joshua Wright said it would be better to
use SciPy's special.loggamma instead,
https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-October/021584.html.

I am lacking the skills to include special.loggamma into a Fortran-file
that will be compiled. If anyone has time and interest to have a look
that would be great.

Any other feedback is of course welcome.
Dieter



On 31/10/16 03:59, Ralf Gommers wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 3:25 AM, Dieter Werthmüller
> <dieter at werthmuller.org <mailto:dieter at werthmuller.org>> wrote:
> 
>     I agree, probably the best would be to use the already existing FFTPACK
>     and the already existing complex gamma function, which would mean only
>     one file, fftlog.f, has to be added.
> 
>     In this regard, it might be best to first ask if there is sufficient
>     interest for a logarithmic FFT, as you point out Joshua, before
>     investing more time. Any opinions? For anyone interested I list the
>     website of the original FFTLog again:
>     http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/FFTLog
>     <http://casa.colorado.edu/%7Eajsh/FFTLog>
> 
> 
> I haven't come across a use case for this myself, but the original paper
> [1] is highly cited and the citation come from a range of fields. The
> one fftlog.f file doesn't look worse than the average Fortran file, so
> this will likely be okay to maintain. So I'm fine with adding this feature.
> 
> Ralf
> 
> [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0021999178901079
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>