Well, in turn, I have flipped a bit on the visitor. I just think that the
name of the method that accepts the visitor should be the same so that users
think of it as the same thing. Functions are good, but giving a tiny bit
more information to the function is also a great idea. It will still
Le 26/08/2011 07:45, Phil Steitz a écrit :
On 8/25/11 8:11 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
2011/8/25 Sébastien Brisardsebastien.bris...@m4x.org
Hi Ted,
You missed my suggestion.
are you referring to the thread named New method: addToEntry in
RealVector?
If yes, I initially thought that what you
Ted,
When you say
Functions are good, but giving a tiny bit
more information to the function is also a great idea
do you mean information on indexing and shape of the data?
One thought I had, I am not sure if this is 100% applicable is the
following:
1. You have two types of data (in matrix)
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Luc Maisonobe luc.maison...@free.frwrote:
Thanks, Ted. That does look very flexible and approachable too. ...
I like the view approach, but wonder how it scales ... down for small data.
I doubt that it does scale all the way down. But then again, I doubt
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Greg Sterijevski gsterijev...@gmail.comwrote:
Ted,
When you say
Functions are good, but giving a tiny bit
more information to the function is also a great idea
do you mean information on indexing and shape of the data?
I meant the location of the
Okay, here we go!
Yes, every matrix can be written or considered sparse. My point is that
knowing the sparsity obeys a pattern (say diagonal) makes your life easier.
Maybe my muddled discussion has added more confusion, an example is in order
(to maximize the entropy, of course). If I was going
In Mahout, all of this works pretty well without needing the information
that you are suggesting.
Inversion is not supported, of course, but a solve method on Diagonal can
definitely know what to do. See CholeskyDecomposition for an example.
Addition of a diagonal matrix to a normal matrix
Hi,
following Greg's suggestion, here is a first attempt at summarizing
what I understood from the previous discussions regarding
RealVector/RealMatrix interfaces. If we finally drop the matter, as
suggested by Phil, this will be just that: a summary. Otherwise, maybe
this list could be moved to a
You missed my suggestion.
That is I think that there are about 10x too many methods here.
What is needed is a a copy, a couple of view operations and an assign (or
mapToSelf if you need obtuse names). The assign operation should be
over-loaded in a few convenient forms, but from the users point
Hi Ted,
You missed my suggestion.
are you referring to the thread named New method: addToEntry in
RealVector?
If yes, I initially thought that what you suggested was pretty similar
to the Visitor approach.
Thanks to the above message, I now understand that your suggestion is
the Visitor
On 8/25/11 8:11 AM, Ted Dunning wrote:
2011/8/25 Sébastien Brisard sebastien.bris...@m4x.org
Hi Ted,
You missed my suggestion.
are you referring to the thread named New method: addToEntry in
RealVector?
If yes, I initially thought that what you suggested was pretty similar
to the Visitor
Hi.
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 02:12:33AM +0200, Sébastien Brisard wrote:
I think this is already implemented as
walkInXXXOrder(RealMatrixChangingVisitor). I thought it would be handy
(and consistent with RealVector) to have this very method, but it's
true a RealMatrixChangingVisitorFactory
Before we fill JIRA with a bunch of point-counterpoint comments. Perhaps we
can organize our ideas on the list first?
Using Gille's organization:
* Consistency in naming and make explicit the rationale for choosing one or
another naming scheme
What methods are inconsistently named? Name the
On 8/24/11 7:27 PM, Greg Sterijevski wrote:
Before we fill JIRA with a bunch of point-counterpoint comments. Perhaps we
can organize our ideas on the list first?
Using Gille's organization:
* Consistency in naming and make explicit the rationale for choosing one or
another naming scheme
There is a lot to like in the WalkInOrder* set of methods. However, it is
also very constricting. What if I want to set a whole row with a
Arrays.copyTo() call? Also, the interface is a push interface. Data is
pushed to the delegate. This is very troublesome to me. I might need random
access to
Why not use Ted's insight? Instead of a bunch of these setDiagonal,
setAll, setFirstN, ... why not just have a set( MatrixFunction mf ). The
MatrixFunction delegate could handle whatever we want. It would keep the
objects very clean. You could even have a class factory of commonly used
I think this is already implemented as
walkInXXXOrder(RealMatrixChangingVisitor). I thought it would be handy
(and consistent with RealVector) to have this very method, but it's
true a RealMatrixChangingVisitorFactory would do very nicely.
Sébastien
2011/8/24 Greg Sterijevski
Hi,
I believe that in o.a.c.m.linear.RealMatrix, there is no method
set(double) which would set *all* entries to the same value. Such a
method exists (and is useful) in o.a.c.m.linear.RealVector. I propose
(if you think that could be useful) to open a JIRA issue.
Thanks for your comments!
I think it would be good to add this, but it would probably be
better to give it a different name. What name, I am not sure.
Maybe setAll or fill. Might also be useful to have versions that
fill submatrics.
Here is a little joke to lighten things up a bit. What if we just
allow people to
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be good to add this, but it would probably be
better to give it a different name. What name, I am not sure.
Maybe setAll or fill. Might also be useful to have versions that
fill submatrics.
Mahout
Maybe setAllEntries? That would be consistent with setEntry?
What about RealVector? The method set(double) should be renamed also?
Sébastien
2011/8/22 Ted Dunning ted.dunn...@gmail.com:
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Phil Steitz phil.ste...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be good to add
21 matches
Mail list logo
