Hi all,
Le 02/07/2011 18:20, Ted Dunning a écrit :
That won't work.
That only works for statically declared matrix types, not run-time matrix
types. To be usable, the suggested mechanism must work against runtime
data-types.
I agree with this need to work with runtime data-types.
In one of your messages, you wrote about marker predicated like
isSymmetric() or the like. In another message, you wrote about using
instanceof. What would be the better approach ?
Another point is about the implementation of iterative solvers (see
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MATH-581>). Could the operators
proposed in the two issues (MATH-581 and MATH-608) be merged together ?
best regards,
Luc
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:38 AM, Matthew Pocock<turingatemyhams...@gmail.com
wrote:
You may get more mileage by having a matrix operation interface that has is
parameterised over the two matrix types. It would have things like multiply
once and you would have different concrete implementations for different
pairs of matrix types. The implementations can even be provided via one of
the matrix classes to allow it to take advantage of the matrix internal
structure without exposing it.
On 1 Jul 2011 22:49, "Ted Dunning"<ted.dunn...@gmail.com> wrote:
Double dispatch was the wrong term. I should have said double argument
polymorphism. Double dispatch is a sub-optimal answer to the problem of
double polymorphism.
Apologies for polluting the discussion with a silly error.
On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Greg Sterijevski<gsterijev...@gmail.com
wrote:
Ted,
I am not sure why you think there will be double dispatch. If we remove
the
multiplica...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
