Adding to that current tests dont cover all cases and at all levels of sparseness and across multiple implementations Seq.fn(Rand) Rand.fn(Dense) and so on, so need to add a framework which does that
Robin On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 9:10 PM, Jake Mannix <jake.man...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Robin Anil <robin.a...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > And we do have v1.plus() vs. v1.plusMutable() - the latter is addTo(). > > > > > What about other things like minus, divide etc etc > > > > > Those methods all return copies, and the mutable versions are simply > generalizations of the fact that > > v.addTo(w) is just shorthand for w.assign(v, Functions.plus); > > Vector.assign(Vector v, BinaryFunctin map), with map chosen to be > Functions.minus, Functions.div, etc, does what you want. > > The only trick here is we need another flag to the assign method saying > whether iteration should be sparse or not, because unlike for > UnaryFunction, > which you can tell should be sparse or not by checking apply(0) == 0, > there's no canonical way to tell whether BinaryFunction.apply(x,0) = 0 > for all x. So either we need BinaryFunction itself to have some way of > notifying this ( like say a marker interface: ZeroPreservingBinaryFunction > ) > or we need an optional boolean flag in this method, otherwise this method > has to use dense iteration. > > -jake >
