| Re: [eigen] cwise / array |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] cwise / array
- From: "Gael Guennebaud" <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 11:04:55 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VIU25eyRt66rgV9J1AL5C6Oa6BwWdwe9pX+dSvjB9gs=; b=A6rl8jNvqNFg24kcZG7ZqJw0+ydWp2T119ACRdmAaUkVqO62sxOacVRAf1uYXIOGiF XRdoV6Hqq6rNmcfH27dX86EXq77SxFsBUj4+tsfQsHW2RkLgwzC9q8uvI3X5FqDqIqcx X55Dz3BLLVh23awmUHaExr4IxkGdEPn7TvZxE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=x4LixUyHMJd1785loW+UzSy0DLau6wrN05Y8/81D55CPbuL9FjBk2sVO7YqZRENWvm DA2uUG3y5Vu56iU0oPS8Xlc6HdpilQfQgab6tX94Xc69oOVpZ5wyF1kfkRd8PPh67IY7 tkwN47L1L7MAed2mW1i7xi6/0z9bzJi2AQcMk=
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 9:06 AM, Benoît Jacob <jacob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to harmonize a bit the API for coefficient-wise operations. Currently
good idea.
> I propose to do:
> * rename cwise(functor) to fromUnary(functor) and fromBinary(functor)
hm... I don't really like the "from" which could likely be interpreted
as a "set from". What about apply*() or maybe just unary(), binary()
? or even unaryExpr(), binaryExpr() ??
(I like the latter ones with "Expr")
> * rename create(functor) to fromNullary(functor)
this one a static member. BTW, what about naming static members with a
upper case for the first letter: MyMatrix::Random(), MyMatrix::Zero(),
etc. My point is that currently you can write:
Matrix3f a, b;
b = a.zero();
this would work but it not clear what you're really doing especially with:
b = a.fromNullary(functor);
With an upper case:
b = a.Zero();
it is immedialtely clear that you're doing something insane. I know
this is a quite common coding rule though Qt does not use it (don't
known about KDE). Moreover it works pretty well here because then you
would write Matrix3f::Zero() which might give you the feeling that
Matrix3f::Zero is a nested struct, that is wrong, but pretty close to
what actually does Zero(), i.e., creating a "zero" expression.
about fromNullary(functor), again it could be simply ::nullary(),
::Nullary(), ::nullaryExpr() or ::NullaryExpr() ....
> * rename array() to cwise()
why not.
> * move all the cwiseSomeMethod() to cwise() so that instead of doing
> matrixbase.cwiseSomeMethod() one always does matrixbase.cwise().someMethod()
ok
> * move the Cwise (formerly Array) proxy class to the Core module, but leave
> most of the methods in Array module -- just like the MatrixBase class is in
> Core but has methods in other modules.
yes, the previous point implies this one
> * it then becomes possible to use more operator notation e.g.
> matrixbase.cwiseProduct(other) becomes matrixbase.cwise() * other.
nice.
> I also plan to add square() and cube() functors. square() is the same as abs2
> () in the real case but has a nicer name when it's what's really meant (like
> in mandelbrot) and is different in the complex case. cube() is useful at
> least in the VDW example so it wouldn't be needed anymore to write a 12-th
> power functor, one could just do:
> m.cwise().square()
> .cwise().square()
> .cwise().cube()
excellent, I have to say that writing .abs2() sounded a bit strange to
me while what I wanted is really a cwise square !
cheers,
gael.