[Numpy-discussion] Changed behavior of np.gradient

Charles R Harris charlesr.harris at gmail.com
Tue Oct 14 13:28:49 EDT 2014

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:

> On 4 Oct 2014 22:17, "Stéfan van der Walt" <stefan at sun.ac.za> wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 4, 2014 10:14 PM, "Derek Homeier" <
> derek at astro.physik.uni-goettingen.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > +1 for an order=2 or maxorder=2 flag
> >
> > If you parameterize that flag, users will want to change its value
> (above two). Perhaps rather use a boolean flag such as "second_order" or
> "high_order", unless it seems feasible to include additional orders in the
> future.
> Predicting the future is hard :-). And in particular high_order= would
> create all kinds of confusion if in the future we added 3rd order
> approximations but high_order=True continued to mean 2nd order because of
> compatibility. I like maxorder (or max_order would be more pep8ish I guess)
> because it leaves our options open. (Similar to how it's often better to
> have a kwarg that can take two possible string values than to have a
> boolean kwarg. It makes current code more explicit and makes future
> enhancements easier.)

I think maxorder is a bit misleading. The both versions are second order in
the interior while at the ends the old is first order and the new is second
order. Maybe edge_order?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20141014/65116e78/attachment.html>

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list