|Re: [eigen] inconsistent cwise() support|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] inconsistent cwise() support
- From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:50:45 -0500
- 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=AALOCpjLoWNWS6+V5K3b+k9ReJEgFmvosxJ249B9NHY=; b=vHBqL2tVJ9ElalgrNP/jD7LvprCQ6ldX01YFPjZpYhB7ajPjqLY0ZAdn9u4Xh6mtfI +yFTJ8JRJIUPPJG+4oakVC035xe1cmodpZxYPSfZ8bJbbOojbIsKoidlbQyRgrW867/a Z1iaIkjC4Kxa6ADM8xzGZrOwUxqdqBRnI+QiQ=
- 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=vHMwHozMeL9iA5JRbZS/UvI+Z2zLksMMSB9Q2LNHrHkbSP98XyNr/gm59XMyR35F3h D7oWf1xngOCF+/1rL/HcJMUEfg9sX0sMJEOz6F+ygaeg1DA6HykysXEV5FYrvpr+az0/ OUlS2LBGH4KfLiRZhtt0jVB4ReEC0RI6K3AKE=
>> > 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...