totally agreed with Ted ! On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]> wrote:
> Actually, I think that most of us understand that size refers to the > dimension of the vector (by analogy with ArrayList). > > How about we go with a strong convention that size() returns dimensionality > and change the constructor args for RASV. The real problem here is that > second argument. > > Then if we need to, we can come up with an accessor that gives us back the > allocated capacity of a vector. For DenseVector, that would be equal to > size(). For RASV it would start at the initialCapacity and grow as needed > but always be <= size() + epsilon and >= the number of non-zeros. For some > other sparse formats, it might be equal to the current number of non-zeros. > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Weishung Chung <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I believe most of us understand that Vector.size() and Matrix.size() > refer > > to the size of the vector or matrix, so it's not that a big deal. > > But I would recommend just rename the size in the constructor to > > initialCapacity which would be clear to most of us that it refers to the > > initialCapacity of the internal backing map. Just my two cents :D > > > > RandomAccessSparseVector(int cardinality, int size) > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 5:03 AM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > You're right, I forgot about that. We'd have to rename Vector.size() to > > > Vector.dimension() to be consistent... And maybe Matrix.size() too? > > > > > > Makes the refactoring a little bit more complicated. I think we should > > also > > > keep Vector.size() and Matrix.size() as deprecated methods for a little > > time > > > so we don't break any uncommitted patches. > > > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > --sebastian > > > > > > > > > On 12.02.2011 03:29, Ted Dunning wrote: > > > > > >> It's a great idea. > > >> > > >> Changing any accessor names is a bit of a bigger deal, but still > > >> probably a good idea if we get consensus. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Sebastian Schelter <[email protected] > > >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Any objections to that? I'd go for a quick refactoring without a > > >> jira if no one objects. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
