Because it is redundant. Jake's testing suggestion is still good. On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ah yes, forgot about which case we were doing. Simple solution: bring back > addTo(). Why did we get rid of it? > > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Would need to iterate on non-zeros of the argument even, not on the >> receiver. >> >> On 06.09.2011 17:24, Ted Dunning wrote: >> > Shouldn't AbstractVector specially detect the plus case and iterate only >> on >> > non-zeros? >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Jake Mannix <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> Why not just override assign() in the sparse subclasses? >> >> >> >> On Sep 6, 2011 5:28 AM, "Sebastian Schelter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> The replacement of addTo() with .assign(..., Functions.PLUS) might >> cause >> >> havoc in sparse vectors with dimension Integer.MAX_VALUE as >> >> AbstractVector assign() will run from 0 to Integer.MAX_VALUE. >> >> >> >> Should we reintroduce it then? >> >> >> >> --sebastian >> >> >> > >> >> >
