| Re: [eigen] Partially fixed size matrices. |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
]
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] Partially fixed size matrices.
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:20:20 +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=wqNHNz2BO8C9zPx55YxqDA9CEiK0UXyvWGKlyw8KwPQ=; b=qO0LX5iGjzWH6UI3RwPTk+KL5kdtTtTAgT7EJM5pZUF8LlbAu5f7nrZrN4Y0vhzh8G 6VNU4UYzucO4QRzzhePfNGtNi1Qovbc5k59JdAcywecrEdwwofGQvgyNuFpUujQjBsXC qcYUZOE7ki9VN2TLiyUEoyQjJdmeqWWuA+SvE=
- 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=GS6U7vOU86qTimOGjK4jgZiEECAh/1GkRsLcE/mS9gw1/3D+2KUqSDtHq1SfRpnfS4 YOVcz45vbQmrKLLF2V8LwXXb9MHKnit3pXbt65SQEjT0m3MzKS8zi4PqAJtlUAmBQu8W WlRmVfN8hJu+l4sKhotfv9OCVJ2i1YTWwsYpk=
2009/6/11 Gael Guennebaud <gael.guennebaud@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Tim Hutt<tdhutt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> One of the examples given in the documentation says that you can do
>> things like this:
>>
>> Eigen::Matrix<double, Dynamic, 1> foo(10); // A 10x1 matrix (ie a vector)
>>
>> However, it makes no mention of if you can do this:
>>
>> Eigen::Matrix<double, Dynamic, 2> bar(???); // An Nx2 matrix.
>
> of course you can do that, and this is even recommended because this
> allows Eigen to unroll some inner loops.
>
>> And none of the constructors seem appropriate for a matrix like this.
>> The single argument one is the only one that really makes sense and it
>> says it is only for vectors.
>
> Indeed, you have to specify both sizes even though one is already
> known and cannot be changed. Perhaps we could allow the "vector" ctor
> to work in that case too ? Right know I don't have a strong opinion.
Hm, no strong opinion either. On the one hand it can be convenient /
expected by the user. On the other hand it means that the semantics
depend on which size is fixed and which is dynamic. We already do that
for vectors / rowvectors, though.
I'd say 'yes' but it's only a 51% majority among my neurons...
>> While on the topic of documentation it would be awesome if you could
>> set up a way to append comments to the documentation pages. This can
>> be very useful, e.g. the MySQL documentation has (or had, they seem to
>> have changed it a bit) a lot of useful comments.
>
> This is a good idea, however since we are using doxygen to generate
> the doc this not going to be easy unless we extend doxygen itself !
> Moreover, since the documentation evolves from one version to the
> other, it is probably very tricky to be able to correctly propagate
> the comments...
Yes, the doc is inseparable from the source code otherwise it would be
unmanageable to keep it in sync.
Meanwhile the best possibilities to have for commenting are:
1) open issues on the tracker
or
2) fork our hg repository and add your comments/changes into the
documentation in the source code. then ask us to pull your
improvements.
Benoit