[Numpy-discussion] Numpy FFT normalization options issue (addition of new option)
sebastian at sipsolutions.net
Sat Jun 27 10:39:57 EDT 2020
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 21:53 -0700, leofang wrote:
> Hi all,
> Since I brought this issue from CuPy to Numpy, I'd like to see a
> made sooner than later so that downstream libraries like SciPy and
> CuPy can
> act accordingly. I think norm='forward' is fine. If there're still
> unhappy with it after my reply, I'd suggest norm='reverse'. It has
> the same
> meaning, but is less confusing (than 'inverse' or other choices on
> table) to me.
I expect "forward" is good (if I misread something please correct me),
and I think we can go ahead with it, sorry for the delay. However, I
have send an email to scipy-dev, since we should give them at least a
heads-up, and if you do not mind, I would wait a few days to actually
merge (although we can also simply reverse, as long as CuPy does not
have a release with it).
It might be nice to expand the kwarg docs slightly with a sentence for
each normalization mode? Refering to `np.fft` docs is good, but if we
can squeeze in a short refresher and refer there for details/formula it
would be nicer.
I feel "forward" is very intuitive, but only after pointing out that it
is related to whether the fft or ifft has the normalization factor.
> Sent from: http://numpy-discussion.10968.n7.nabble.com/
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at python.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the NumPy-Discussion