Re: [eigen] [PATCH] Toeplitz matrix specialization

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

2009/1/29 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:55 PM, Keir Mierle <mierle@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Gael Guennebaud
>> <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> to start the debate I put some thougths on the wiki:
>> The idea of making solveTriangular into Part::solve() sounds good to
>> me. Right now the hetergeneous API for solving triangular systems is
>> unfortunate. I vote to have solve() work as expected for triangular
>> matrices with the same API as LU::solve, SVD::solve, QR::solve, etc
>> (i.e. MyVec x; bool succeeded = my_triangular_mat.solve(b, &x);).
>> Perhaps mymat.upperTriangular().solve(...)?
> yes, exactly.
>> Is there an excessive runtime cost to detecting a singular matrix in
>> the triangular solver?
> N comparisons, just like for Cholesky.

I don't have strong opinions here, but i'd just like to mention, if we
do changes and the current solveTriangular could become deprecated,
then better mark it as experimental NOW so we can remove it later!!

The time left until the release is useful exactly for that and none of
the projects I feel responsible for are already depending on the
solveTriangular API.


Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+