[SciPy-Dev] Direction of polynomial/rational approximation in SciPy

[Ralf Gommers]

On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 11:33 AM Joshua Wilson <josh.craig.wilson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> The goal of this post is to try and build consensus around where
> polynomial/rational approximation in SciPy should be headed. I'd like
> to add whatever we come up with to the roadmap.
>
> Over the years we've had many discussions on what polynomial/rational
> approximations should look like in SciPy; for a sample see e.g.
>
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/6591
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/7181
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/6928
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/6929
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/4674
>
> Some high-level takeaways from those discussions seem to be:
>
> (1) We would like to have better support for rational approximations in
> SciPy
> (2) `special.orthopoly1d` is not worth trying to fix
> (3) We want to avoid overlap with `numpy.polynomial`
>
> At this point I think (1) is pretty vague; we need to figure out what
> methods we want to support and how to organize them.
>
> We've discussed (2) and (3) a lot, but haven't come to a consensus.
> One solution would be to do something like
>
> (1) Add series implementations that inherit from NumPy's `ABCPolyBase`
> for the families that are currently in SciPy but not in NumPy (though
> we can drop the shifted variants since NumPy handles that already).
> (2) Deprecate `orthopoly1d`
>
> I'll note that Chuck had some concerns about families with infinite
> support:
>
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy/issues/7181#issuecomment-288273394
>
> What are people's thoughts on these issues?
>

Your proposal makes sense to me. I don't know enough about either the NumPy
or SciPy implementations to comment in more detail, but +1 from a
maintenance point of view.

Cheers,
Ralf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20190907/4af03a6f/attachment.html>