Re: [eigen] inconsistent cwise() support

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

>> > Yes that's what I was going to reply: I like Jitse's proposal too but
>> > we really don't have to provide .cwiseEverything(), only the most
>> > common functions,
>> >  matrix.cwiseProduct(matrix2)
>> >  matrix.cwiseSum(scalar)
>> >  matrix.cwiseAbs()
>> >  matrix.cwiseAbs2()
>> Also I wonder. If matrix.cwiseAbs() is a synonym for
>> matrix.array().abs(), perhaps we should call that matrix.arrayAbs()?
>> In other words,  s/cwise/array/g ? To have only 1 terminology everywhere.
> Well, the first question is whether we still want a .array() method or not?

Oh, I hadn't understood that was the question.
Do you really think that we can do without? First it would require us
to add a ton of cwise...() functions that will not often be used
(what's the use for cwiseCos() when we have a true Array class?), and
even then, we still wouldn't have all the power that .array()
provides, e.g. think of user-defined functions taking an Array...


Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+