Hi, yes, no big reason to deviate. But, simplicity of `*a (+) b*` or `*a >< b*`like ` *a ^ 2*` (compared to `*xor(a, b)`*, which of the type` *pow(a, 2) `*), to be consistent with the other symbols of dml.
In this simple case: 1. ` *a (+) b (+) c (+) d(+)...* ` 2. ` *xor(xor(a, b), c)..) ` (*sorry, if I written this syntax wrongly) Your word will be final. Thanks, Janardhan On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Matthias Boehm <[email protected]> wrote: > Could we please stick to R syntax (i.e., "xor(a, b)") here, unless there is > a good reason to deviate? Thanks. > > Regards, > Matthias > > On Mon, Sep 4, 2017 at 7:55 AM, Janardhan Pulivarthi < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi all, [XOR symbol] > > > > Now, I gave a sample try for the XOR operator, with caret ` ^ ` symbol. > > But, this have been reserved for exponentiation. So, another alternative > > would be > > > > 1. ` (+) ` > > 2. ` >< ` > > 3. ` >-< ` > > > > Thanks, > > Janardhan > > > > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Matthias Boehm <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> From a scalar operation perspective, you could of course emulate XOR via > >> AND, OR, and negation. However, you might want to write anyway a > java-based > >> UDF to efficiently implement this recursive operator. > >> > >> Down the road, we can think about a generalization of our existing > >> cumulative operations such as cumsum, cumprod, cummax, to arbitrary cell > >> computations and aggregation functions, which would be useful for quite > a > >> number of applications. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Matthias > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 5:59 AM, Janardhan Pulivarthi < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The following is an equation (2.4) from the algorithm for the > generation > >>> of sobol sequences. The authors of the paper have utilized the bitwise > >>> operations of C++ to calculate this efficiently. > >>> > >>> *Now, the question is:* Can we do this at script level (in dml) or we > >>> should do it in the `java` itself as a builtin, function to generate > the > >>> numbers?. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Janardhan > >>> > >> > >> > > >
