| Re: [eigen] patch for tridiagonal matrices in eigen |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] patch for tridiagonal matrices in eigen
- From: "Mauro Iazzi" <mauro.iazzi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 10:46:12 +0100
- 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=9j0gRHC9X793Xl9Do+75Z3NdFWpcTqUk3Z/sZQab8cc=; b=p30A2XcW3MzZyR+BJ8r3yE/Buzaz3PYTGK4Bp/ig/42KpDluRhezXR5rHWkfQqffnn tIeL/WEZpS8STJRHh+l+t+B/8F9nO4KowTuammJ4h0qlaczJCCkYGqAARfIMVrKD9wDf oc8DE66worLoC2qOZWibqmgvBMiviGR4lHSKU=
- 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=lHx0qsLvvBO2OG9lR0bjElnn+jN4uOP1JsJBusOtEV9lC05lFcApL630GWZt86quIF KYUtgsQfuxOV0YvRvgHU0DFpgfZF83MJo86vqYD3iQpP4KRXZrZwTsZzMfIyiy/G101s qRbI39NpBS8VaD1GLAaGu5GBsl1RruPGDZ9dY=
2008/12/20 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> OK ok,
>
> first of all, I'm taking care of the Upper--->UpperTriangular change
> tomorrow, so, Mauro, don't worry about it.
ok, thank you... I'm really busy these times...
>
> But then I thought about implementing the change "from & to ==" as
> described in the previous email below.
>
> A bit of thinking shows that it's really an intrusive change! So I
> propose to postpone that too to after we branch 2.0.
>
> All what matters is that we keep API stability after 2.0. The
> Upper--->UpperTriangular change affects the API so it must be done
> now, but the rest, intrusive as it is, doesn't affect the API.
>
> Cheers,
> Benoit
>
> 2008/12/19 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> 2008/12/19 Mauro Iazzi <mauro.iazzi@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>> I do not understand properly the meaning of these flags. For example
>>> part needs assumes some to be exclusive but not others (i.e.
>>> UpperTriangular is not UpperHessenberg, but StrictlyUpper is
>>> UpperTridiagonal...). If part() checked using == instead of & I think
>>> it would be safe to use the Flags to mark the type of the matrix (it
>>> already does in some points).
>>
>> Hm, good remark.
>> It seems that the current design, whcih worked quite well do far, does
>> not scale very well.
>> Maybe indeed it's time to start using exclusive flags and == instead of &.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Benoit
>>
>
> ---
>
>
---