Wavelet package available?

[Bengt Richter]

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 23:03:44 +0200, "gez" <gez_75 at hotmail.com> wrote:
[previously top_posted text moved]

>"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
>news:z4adnU-lwpqa1eWiU-KYjA at comcast.com...
>>
>> "Gez" <gez_75 at hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2ceb70f8.0309290136.118a856d at posting.google.com...
>> > Does anyone know if there is a wavelet package available for Python?
>> > This package should at least have the Daubechy wavelet.
>>
>> Before posting a question like this and waiting hours for a reply, one
>> should try a search engine like Google.  In this case, "Python
>> wavelets"
>>
>> If this fails, then post question and note what you tried without
>> success.  This tells responders both that you made an effort and also
>> what they should not waste time on in trying to help you.
>>
>> Teaching-you-to-fish-ly yours,
>>
>> Terry J. Reedy
>>
>>
>
>
<previously_top_posted>
>Why this stupid answer? I tried to find python in combination with wavelets,
>both in the normal Google search engine and the Google groups search. Also
>jpython/jython, etc. but non of the results was what I wanted to use. So,
>that is why I posted it here. Think this is exacly the place to be...
>
Right, but the compulsively helpful probably went off duplicating your search,
which you could have prevented or gotten a better refinement from, instead of
this round of "oh, well in that case, ..."

>Looked at wavelets.org, looked for Java implementations,etc.etc.
>
>Btw, I once wrote a wavelets (de)composition in Delphi and C++Builder.  And
>fyi, I looked up the faq. So, I am not a novice at all in this field, but I
>just need a version in Python which I couldn't find.
>
So how different do you think the response would have been if you had started
with this background info in your post?

>So, please, think before you write such an answer. Not everybody is as
>stupid as you think.
Look in the mirror and say that, but think in terms of social stuff ;-)
And please don't top-post (ok, it could have been worse, at least you didn't post HTML ;-)
>
>And even then. If someone doesn't know the correct search keywords for use
>in Google, this place is still the place to be.
Right again. So,
>
>So please be more kind to the next poster that (in you eyes) posts a stupid
>question.
>
And you please be more kind to the compulsively helpful, so that they can
help you and others better, not waste their time on stuff you could easily
steer them away from by mentioning more context. Doing so also gives you
a chance to head off replies you might take as implying you're stupid, if
you're prone to reading things that way ;-)

</previously_top_posted>

BTW, if you find some python wavelet stuff, I'd be interested to see it too ;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter