After sleeping on it, it may be ok to include these methods in Mat as methods for "filling up matrices" so long as in the end you end up with a Mat that you then use as an operator.
But I'd still like to see/understand a little more of the "construction" process. Classically one would do that as loops over elements and perform all the computations for the one element before moving to the next. In Matlab this can be done instead (with some impact on performance) using a sequence of array operations (with the loop inside each array operation). In the past, since PETSc was used exclusively from C/C++ and Fortran users built their matrices (operators) using the "classical" approach, now with python it appears reasonable that we may need to add the "array" approach. Barry On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Matthew Knepley wrote: > Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: > > > On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:57:02 -0500 > > Matthew Knepley <knepley at mcs.anl.gov> wrote: > > > >> > >> > (d) m=exp(m) (pointwise exp) > >> > >> We could add pointwise operations just like the VecPointwise*(). > >> > >> Matt > > > > Yes, we need MatPointwiseMult aswell. > > > > Should I make a start on this ? > > I am thinking more about what Barry said. The VecPointwise*() operations > can be given a solid mathematical interpretation in terms of spinor > operations. > However, I do not see anything like that for the Mat stuff yet. We need to > understand the mathematicas better. > > Matt >
