[Scilab-users] Why window() provides only symmetric weighting?

[Federico Miyara]

There are several software packages, not only Matlab, that call this 
concept "periodic", for instance Octave, Scipy (from Python), DADiSP. 
Regarding the last one, I've found an interesting reference:

https://www.dadisp.com/webhelp/mergedProjects/refman2/FncrefFK/FLATTOP.htm

Here, along with a description of the function, it mentions that 
"periodic" can also be called "iso" since there is ISO Standard 18431-1 
dealing with vibrations (Mechanical vibration and shock — Signal 
processing Part 1: General introduction), which seemingly makes some 
related normative prescriptions. Unfortunately the standard is too 
expensive for me to even attempt to buy it, but perhaps some member of 
this list has university access to these Standards.

I'm pretty sure that the ISO doesn't suggest that the name of this type 
of window is "iso", but I'm in doubt whether they call it "periodic" or 
they just introduce the recommended formula or algorithm.

Anyway, "iso" would be even more obscure than "periodic", if only 
because there are literally thousands of ISO standards and most users 
probably don't even suspect there is one covering this.

Regards,

Federico Miyara


On 12/04/2021 11:23, Claus Futtrup wrote:
> Dear friends
>
> I believe the initial question is related to giving more options to 
> the window functions, such that it can continue how it is today (aka 
> 'symmetric') but also offer alternatives. If these additional options 
> makes sense, and can default such that they are not required (existing 
> code continues to work unaffected), and the additional options are 
> useful and meaningful in a mathematical sense, then I'm all for adding 
> these options.
>
> When it comes to naming schemes, then Scilab is not required to 
> strictly follow the Matlab regime. We can choose what we find most 
> correct and concise. In some cases Scilab is 'better' than our 
> competition, which is a pleasure. It is true that some users come from 
> Matlab and sometimes we read Matlab code to convert its functionality 
> into Scilab - in these cases it works perfectly good for me to make a 
> Matlab-to-Scilab translation somewhere in the documentation.
>
> Therefore, I hope we can have a good discussion about which name is 
> the most meaningful.
>
> With kind regards,
> Claus
>
> On 12-04-2021 09:22, Dang Ngoc Chan, Christophe wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> De : Federico Miyara
>>> Envoyé : dimanche 11 avril 2021 02:08
>>>
>>> Like it or not, I guess these keywords come from Matlab, and as Matlab
>>> still seems to dominate the market, many people, including those
>>> willing to quit Matlab (as I did several years ago), are quite used to
>>> those keywords
>> I don't agree with this argument.
>> If a way of doing is wrong, then just keep on going because 
>> "everybody does so" is just an argumentum ad populum
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
>>
>> which is a fallacious argument.
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Christophe Dang Ngoc Chan
>> Mechanical calculation engineer
>>
>>
>> General
>> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. 
>> If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail 
>> in error), please notify the sender immediately and destroy this 
>> e-mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the 
>> material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
>> _______________________________________________
>> users mailing list
>> users at lists.scilab.org
>> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> users mailing list
> users at lists.scilab.org
> http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>


-- 
El software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de virus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus