|Re: [eigen] [Review] Pull request 66, Huge Tensor module improvements|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: "eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [eigen] [Review] Pull request 66, Huge Tensor module improvements
- From: "Wood, Tobias" <tobias.wood@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 06:46:10 +0000
- Accept-language: en-GB, en-US
- Thread-index: AQHPhQQu1OmaTVzAAEysh/dJGpMqJ5tsJSSAgAAWhYCAAFvKAIAAjlmAgAY9QgCAACQfgIAAPUuAgAALWQCAAAZUgIAAAdkAgFqifwA=
- Thread-topic: [eigen] [Review] Pull request 66, Huge Tensor module improvements
I am wondering if any progress has been made on the Tensor module and incorporating Benoit's work? I know it has only been 2 months since the last discussion, but I took a look on BitBucket and the latest change date on the Tensor module is from before Benoit's first e-mail.
I need multi-dimensional storage for my current work, so I wrote a very simple class earlier this year. However I've hit the limits of what I can do with it, so I'm really looking forward to what you collectively come up with.. I'm sure it will be better!
On 16 Jun 2014, at 15:41, Christian Seiler <christian@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Christoph,
>> And another question I could not extract from the discussion so far:
>> Do you intend to support Tensors where the number of dimensions is
>> not fixed at compile-time?
>> Using ArrayXi-based indexing it would not be too hard to implement
>> and it might have some (very) rare use-cases (e.g., n'th derivations
>> of m-variable, single-value functions are m^n-tensors).
> I have not exactly planned it, but I don't think it's going to be
> terribly difficult to do once the interface is stable. It's definitely
> NOT on the top of my TODO list...