Any algorithm can use it. It's not going to magically work without code changes perhaps. This code wants to directly instantiate Vector implementations, so it does not work to pass it NamedVector, which is not an implementation itself. If a caller wants the output to have names, it can wrap the output in NamedVector. I assume this is the right thing, since Jeff says that Dirichlet by nature does not use names. Is that the right approach, and if so, what's the issue with it? I think we all agree non-named vectors exist and should be modeled separately, so NamedVector itself is the right thing.
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Grant Ingersoll <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess my point is that if we are going to have a NamedVector, then any of > the algs. should be able to use it, otherwise what's the point of having it? > We likely need a better way of constructing things. >
