Soliciting Comments on DSP Library
Wed, 28 May 2003 13:50:15 -0400
Simon Marlow wrote:
> Then I'm happy for your library to be the reference for the DSP
> hierarchy. Unless there are any objections, I'll add that to the list.
> I'd go with the longer names.
> Agreed. The choice about whether to put Statistics at the top level or
> not depends on whether it is likely to evolve into a deep hierarchy
> itself; if not, then Numeric.Statistics should be fine.
> In this case there might be better names though -
> Numeric.Random.Distribution sounds good to me.
I am going to make the naming changes mentioned in the last few emails
in this thread. The potential names can be found at
On question, though. Is it better to have a flat hierarchy, or a
descriptive, but deep one?
For example, I currently have
Is it better to have
so that as I implement other filtering modules, such as Adaptive and
Homomorphic, they have a "proper" home and be grouped together?
Matthew Donadio (email@example.com)