You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I have a need for non-Vector (in fact, infinite) backends in BlockSkylineMatrix so am planning to template out the storage, just as BandedBlockBandedMatrix and BlockArray allow general backends.
While I'm at it, there's a question whether we want to make the type signature more resemble the new BlockArray:
BlockArray{T, N, R <: AbstractArray{<:AbstractArray{T,N},N}, BS<:AbstractBlockSizes{N}}
That is, we have two options:
BlockSkylineMatrix{T, R <: AbstractVector{T}, LL<:AbstractVector{Int}, UU<:AbstractVector{Int}}
BlockSkylineMatrix{T, R <: AbstractVector{T}, BS<:AbstractBlockSizes{2}}
Option 2 is closer to the new BlockArray. @jagot Any reason to prefer Option 1?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I have a need for non-Vector (in fact, infinite) backends in
BlockSkylineMatrix
so am planning to template out the storage, just asBandedBlockBandedMatrix
andBlockArray
allow general backends.While I'm at it, there's a question whether we want to make the type signature more resemble the new
BlockArray
:BlockArray{T, N, R <: AbstractArray{<:AbstractArray{T,N},N}, BS<:AbstractBlockSizes{N}}
That is, we have two options:
BlockSkylineMatrix{T, R <: AbstractVector{T}, LL<:AbstractVector{Int}, UU<:AbstractVector{Int}}
BlockSkylineMatrix{T, R <: AbstractVector{T}, BS<:AbstractBlockSizes{2}}
Option 2 is closer to the new
BlockArray
. @jagot Any reason to prefer Option 1?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: