251
edits
JWE Project Ideas: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- This file should be edited at https://wiki.octave.org/JWE_Project_Ideas --> | <!-- This file should be edited at https://wiki.octave.org/JWE_Project_Ideas --> | ||
== Language and functions == | == Language and functions == | ||
| Line 85: | Line 83: | ||
Octave currently skips structural zeros for most (all?) sparse matrix operations. Matlab returns a sparse matrix filled with NaNs for something like "sprand (5, 5, 0.1) .^ NaN". Should we go for full compatibility? Mathematical correctness? Traditional behavior of sparse matrix libraries? It seems no one really agrees on what is correct or best. Maybe compatibility should win? | Octave currently skips structural zeros for most (all?) sparse matrix operations. Matlab returns a sparse matrix filled with NaNs for something like "sprand (5, 5, 0.1) .^ NaN". Should we go for full compatibility? Mathematical correctness? Traditional behavior of sparse matrix libraries? It seems no one really agrees on what is correct or best. Maybe compatibility should win? | ||
==== Indexed assignment ==== | ==== Indexed assignment ==== | ||
In an assignment like Sparse_object(idx) = GrB_object(idx), Octave does not attempt to apply a conversion operator to transform the RHS type to the LHS type. Is this also a problem for assignments of objects with conversion operators to full matrix objects? | In an assignment like Sparse_object(idx) = GrB_object(idx), Octave does not attempt to apply a conversion operator to transform the RHS type to the LHS type. Is this also a problem for assignments of objects with conversion operators to full matrix objects? | ||
==== graph and digraph ==== | ==== graph and digraph ==== | ||