[Dang it, forgot to CC list, again!]
Am 26.10.2014 um 18:15 schrieb Philipp K. Janert:
> The only reason that they all are presented to
> the user as "smooth" options is that they all
> are implemented using similar facilities, but
> not because they are logically similar.
Actually, it's much more prosaic than that. When the keyword was
created, all the algorithms it chose actually did smooth data (i.e. they
were interpolators). The other ones, that do other kinds of data
transformation, just got plugged into the existing socket because it was
there.
> Question: would it make sense to break this up
> now, before it gets any bigger? And if yes: how?
IMHO, it wouldn't. It might make sense to rename this option, though.
Either "filter" or "transform" would capture the actual intent better
than "smooth". And dgrid3d could become our first "filter" algorithm
for splot, while at it.
|
