On 7/17/07, Kostas Oikonomou <ko at research.att.com> wrote:
> In the current manual, "laplace(...)" is under
> "Differentiation", a rather unlikely place for someone to
> look for it.
Maybe it was put there because the Laplace transform is often
applied to differential equations ... Maybe "Integration" would be
a more appropriate chapter heading. I don't fee strongly enough
to do anything about it, but I wouldn't try to stop anyone from
moving the text.
> On the other hand, the inverse transform is
> "ilt" (somewhat cryptic), under "Integration".
> Wouldn't it make better sense to have an entirely separate
> section on Laplace transforms?
Hmm, maybe it could be a section under "Integration".
> And perhaps rename (or alias) "ilt" to "inverse_laplace"?
I agree that "ilt" is too cryptic. I like "laplace_inverse" better
than "inverse_lapace" on the general principle of big-endian
naming (i.e. most significant part of name goes first).
Now this naming question is something I do feel more strongly
about, and I would like to hear from others whether or not
they support renaming ilt to laplace_inverse (or whatever).
best
Robert Dodier