| 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: "Benoit Jacob" <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 04:24:58 +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=v1/4p/V1hvxvmf2yt0bSVy1UsxoL/s3K93FjtysdyE8=; b=wSF8uWvjcqrDClwGvzG4mVMn88mU88g+b3+WfOLbLkaNBXV3NVbFbLe+QzMeJFjOBQ ou59qkvlHRPm3Tr2uq98JrCGpf8JbSbdKG7i5Mch7yGXjRoDHMgXwpukMfKMoZKMOlca Y4lnrJArM1RSU0wzDWOrOCi0P6ubM5LrXmgP0=
- 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=xFPvIyOXAiC63oA00yxwM9Q9LyU36ZSUFIch7RoWiz512OW9WyMp4aciXwEGVxguv2 nq30XLYwiT5cyOYSEldQDr7muNJBpIj1jv90n9ZKIx5JvLL8YaFWkWO11TY1DVpJ6UuJ EfCcuLGN3Zu3Bfase0CZmtDA1GN+pEYFDdiHY=
OK ok,
first of all, I'm taking care of the Upper--->UpperTriangular change
tomorrow, so, Mauro, don't worry about it.
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
>
---