Re: [ferret_users] boundary condition for smoothing (@SPZ andfriends)

[Ryo Furue <furue@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Billy and Ansley.

| Yes, good suggestion. We should be able to write a set of new
| functions that would parallel the smoothing transforms
| 
|  @SBX        box smoothed      
|  @SBN        binomial smoothed
|  @SWL        Welch smoothed
|  @SHN        Hanning smoothed
|  @SPZ        Parzen smoothed
| 
| but with the edges of the "windows" filled in so that these
| smoothers use filled in so that data isn't lost at the edges.

I'm not familiar with ferret functions, but. . . .

What would the function version look like which correspond
to this?

    let g = f[x=1:10@sbx, y=1:20@sbx]

Would it look like this?

    let g = box_smoother(box_smoother(f, x=1:10), y=1:20)

I guess the @ forms would be a bit more convenient.
Would it be possible to introduce more @ transformations?

Also, in a long run, that might be more benefitial to the users;
that is, once we have new @ transformations, we could eventually
declare the old ones "obsolete" and recommend the users to
migrate to the new ones. (I'm assuming that having edge values is
always better, and that assumption might be wrong.)

Regards,
Ryo