octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [GSoC interval] Re: Update and questions regarding vecorization


From: Joel Dahne
Subject: Re: [GSoC interval] Re: Update and questions regarding vecorization
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:42:55 +0000

Hi Oliver!

Oliver Heimlich writes:

>  - The method NDArray.size has been introduced in Octave 4.2.  If we
> rely on that method, the package will have a dependency on the latest
> version of Octave.  I'd prefer, if the package can compile under Octave
> 4.0 (where this method is missing).  Could you use a different method
> (or define a helper function if compiled with an old Octave version)?

Good to know! I have changed it to use older functions now.

>  - In your blog post—which was a very interesting read, by the way, and
> I could learn some Octave pro stuff—you write that you have been
> inspired by do_bsxfun_op in Octave core.  I guess I should add copyright
> notes then from that file, shouldn't I?
>
>       Copyright (C) 2009-2017 Jaroslav Hajek
>       Copyright (C) 2009 VZLU Prague

Since it is very similar it might be a good idea. Though I must say I
don't know much about how to handle copyright notes.

>    By the way, I also add copyright notes to all files modified by you.
> So, you don't have to do that yourself.

Great!

>  - For the ternary vectorization operator: Like I said before, it is not
> a priority to have broadcasting handled in mpfr_function_d when it is
> already handled in the m-file.  Probably, the resulting C++ code would
> be hard to understand.  You should remove the naive broadcast / resize
> code from the function entirely, and require that all three input
> arguments are of equal size.

That makes everything much easier. I now check that the input parameters
have the exact same size and I don't perform any broadcasting on ternary
functions. I have also added a comment about this and made a note about
it in the documentation of the function.

> Oliver
>
>
> P. S. I didn't finish unit tests for vectorization yet.
At the moment my work does not depend on it so there is no hurry. I read
you issue on GitHub and I think looks very good!

Best regards,
Joel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]