|Re: [eigen] solve with and without check|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] solve with and without check
- From: Andrea Arteaga <yo.eres@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:28:59 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:message-id; bh=ZYx+6qgGRSXBdj9F3bH/v76onWCKKcL3Z3r35eS8uDM=; b=xb9rO7t5rLgzw7vPbIHTEvbBkar11/u17b9boCqtDtICVd4GBTZMcItATWjJ+ANQyg OrB83l+614+58xxzm3RL6IuLdOIL2NB2KrZ6cZQ72rXNjLpr+S7rAtniYfqM1B7t0WNV oBxOUoOjyQrHbH/Dv+BKG2IHf1UAPt7Y0NyOI=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :message-id; b=jM4u/3d0owtNI4JB0AD5cslwKkyxb7iDWrX3oktCae9BrBzcqv8DvDAXxEeza/Rbt2 2tPyyJIigxb+lsnQUXXjTw5MYCZSPmp3kMPbxNzrsp2Xc9W4ruSa5RJU+S4BntnRICHU lRk4/IgSbaQwqMS+FKE1wDRxDDxwmQUX8Sbko=
> Need to stress this: because of this unreliability, the current solve
> isn't really the "safe way" that it's supposed to be.
> My humble opinion: we remove it for now (so solve becomes
> non-checking) and at a later date, if/when we have triangular solvers
> that can check for existence, we add it back as solveWithCheck.
I agree with this solution. I think it actually is the best way.
I only wanted to show that small conflict.