Re: [eigen] [Review] Pull request 66, Huge Tensor module improvements

[ Thread Index | Date Index | More Archives ]

Hi there,

> On 11.06.2014 20:27, Christian Seiler wrote:
>> Ok, since we're looking for an arbitrary number anyway, why don't we
>> just say 10?
> "640 [...] should be enough for everyone"

On one of the "LinuxTag" conferences here in Germany a decade ago or so
you could get free postcards with that quote, and I have one lying
around here somewhere. ;-)

On a serious note, if I don't here anyone who says "I really need more
indices, have a valid reason for that AND can't use C++03", I'll stick
with 10. (With C++11/C++14 you can still have more anyway.)

> I don't object having experimental code in the unsupported modules, but 
> if you are going to change the API several times in the official 
> repository you will annoy possible users of your module -- of course 
> they should not rely on having a stable API yet, but it's definitely 
> preferable to limit API changes.

My current plan, as outlined in [1] does include a short time where I do
some preliminary cleanups before pushing it to the main repository. I
don't see any huge amount of API changes coming along after those, most
of the rest is just going to be internal restructuring of the classes
(and added APIs later, but that doesn't break current code). For
example: I do plan to increase the C++03-emulated number of indices from
5 to 10 (see above), but that won't break existing code, once I do that.

So I do think that we can do both: merge early and keep API relatively
stable. But I will definitely keep your comment in mind before pushing
anything to the main repository.



Mail converted by MHonArc 2.6.19+