A few other questions on this: since each field has a name, can this be used as an identifier for the ISes instead of the hash? I'm brushing up on hashes but also trying to think of simpler alternatives that work.
Next, since MatNestFindSubMat returns a Mat and not a list of Mats, will it be necessary to create a mat nest for the case of a submatrix that is made up of several other submatrices? Thanks, Colin On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Colin McAuliffe <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the comments Jed and Matt, I'll defer to your judgement > regarding the implementation that is the least intrusive. I'll take a look > at this later on when I have time. > Colin > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matthew Knepley <[email protected]> writes: >> > I don't like this business of ISes holding pointers to other ISes. This >> > fundamentally >> > changes the model. The hashing sounds workable. >> >> ISs are immutable and a reference would probably be held anyway, so I >> don't think it's evil. >> >> We also have to think about recursive composition and I'd rather not >> have to walk a subset DAG. If we hash, the IS would just store a list >> of "known subset hashes" with the semantic >> >> (A ∪ B).known_subset_hashes = >> A.known_subset_hashes ∪ B.known_subset_hashes ∪ [hash(A)] ∪ >> [hash(B)] >> > >
