|Re: [eigen] Diagonal matrices diff|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Diagonal matrices diff
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 May 2009 17:00:55 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=bJeZ5u3UabD5JnUM7v+GHv3Z+PgJLqsm9sl8qeo7YJw=; b=wCKh6Uci2fOJLAqq5vS0USWi4hIdInJU3zk/8S1INj8TGYsTFIc2hH3nTyEpbspg/3 P9ma/eR+vm3QvbZvsNRp1uZ0sAEJz+qpDl5HxO812f1IYEp/r4nDJlU42oZ5d1r+V/yQ Ar+Wc0LNSOZQbKhL50pnWC/IFoMR2b3qOOsqA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=oQyitZMFAejX3/lutbZwDqOyuCNM02Q+fCraYJE2eJMqxVC84mcr4Dm8pNJMK2IbPz C8FrrJeSiPSFIMijspgyP3afcKByHl6q6CeDjlJsxLhFzSrFWrH+zmGaGgdZrnmWfjDN 96m9wFRzsnCJ5/s42N7nBbYDmStHvAPX3ZXBQ=
ok, thinking about it: I agree that the terminology "Band" here was
But the name "DiagonalCoeffs" was ugly.
Ideally, we want to call that "Diagonal", but that symbol is already
taken in Constants.h.
Is it time to namespace the constants, a la Qt?
2009/5/10 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2009/5/10 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> I did not read your patch carefully (no time right now) but initially
>> I thought it would be better to keep DiagonalCoeffs and add a new Band
>> class (for compilation time, more specialized API, etc...).
> There's a misunderstanding. By "Band" I mean exactly one
> diagonal/subdiagonal/superdiagonal. I'm using "band" as a shorter,
> unified synonym for all that.
> The only difference between Band and DiagonalCoeffs, is that now the
> index (positive for superdiagonal, negative for subdiagonal) can be a
> runtime variable.
> When I add a class for banded matrix allowing multiple bands, I'll
> call it "BandedMatrix".
> Is this terminology OK?
>> see what I wrote:
> Yes, I read it, btw i made comments here,
> i'd be interested in your thoughts before i do BandedMatrix.