Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ENH: add sinc #16

Closed
lucascolley opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #20
Closed

ENH: add sinc #16

lucascolley opened this issue Nov 5, 2024 · 4 comments · Fixed by #20
Labels
enhancement New feature or request new function

Comments

@lucascolley
Copy link
Collaborator

x-ref scipy/scipy#21783 (comment)

@lucascolley lucascolley added enhancement New feature or request new function labels Nov 5, 2024
@asmeurer
Copy link
Member

asmeurer commented Nov 5, 2024

Does everyone use the normalized definition of sinc?

@lucascolley
Copy link
Collaborator Author

The array libraries we test with in SciPy all follow NumPy in using the normalized definition.

We could add a normalized=True kwarg if the unnormalized use-case ever arose?

@asmeurer
Copy link
Member

asmeurer commented Nov 5, 2024

Not unless that is already common. It doesn't look like NumPy has it. You can always divide by pi if you want an unnormalized sinc.

My main concern is whether we would be deciding on a convention here, or whether that convention has effectively already been decided by the community.

@lucascolley
Copy link
Collaborator Author

My main concern is whether we would be deciding on a convention here, or whether that convention has effectively already been decided by the community.

My two cents is that this library is not trying to weigh in on conventions at all, it is just taking what is used out in the wild and making that accessible in the array-agnostic context. If multiple conventions are used for some function name we should support all common use cases. If/when an API is considered for the standard is when there is a decision on convention.

It sounds like @rgommers would roughly agree from #10 (comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request new function
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants