Interesting. Now that's a compelling use case.
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Jason Pries <[email protected]> wrote: > FWIW, The place I use this the most is when solving PDEs using finite > elements with Dirichlet/Periodic boundary conditions. If I want to preserve > the symmetry of the matrix before factorization, I end up needing to delete > some rows and columns. I could write the code to create the matrix the way > I end up using it, but that would require every function that creates a > matrix to know about the boundary conditions which complicates things > considerably. > > In Julia, I would be using SparseMatrixCSC, so the issue is different than > for general N-dimensional tensors. It's probably possible implement this > functionality for SparseMatrixCSC using the existing functionality for > vectors. > > > On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:04:24 AM UTC-5, Andreas Lobinger wrote: >> >> Hello colleagues, >> >> i couldn't track down, where the Nonsense applies, but in general (also >> in Matlab) it's better for organizing the data in a fixed array and track >> down, what you access from that. This helps the computer/language system. >> >> However, it's not fully uncommon to formulate algorithms that >> reduce/consume an array in an iterative way and it's just easier to read, >> if the non-content is discarded. So this helps the reader or author of >> software. >> >> Implementation for the first is straight forward. >> Implementation for the second is (and will be) under discussion as >> general CS topic... >> >>
