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 was recommending this package in a fantastic WIP JuliaManifolds/Manifolds.jl#12, but forgot that there is a restriction on dim. A brief check seems to indicate that one could in principle get rid of that restriction, since many operators are written in terms of loops i = 1:dim and would work right away. It seems that only a few functions (like inv) are currently written assuming dim in (1, 2, 3). Would you consider PRs to the effect of getting rid of the dimension restriction? One could let certain continuum mechanics-related functions be restricted to dim in (1, 2, 3) and throw errors otherwise?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Could be interesting to play around with if you like. What kind of dimensions are we talking about? The same number-of-element restrictions as with e.g. StaticArrays.jl holds for Tensors.jl too, and tensors with more than ~100 or so elements quickly becomes slow and you are better off with regular Arrays.
I was recommending this package in a fantastic WIP JuliaManifolds/Manifolds.jl#12, but forgot that there is a restriction on
dim
. A brief check seems to indicate that one could in principle get rid of that restriction, since many operators are written in terms of loopsi = 1:dim
and would work right away. It seems that only a few functions (likeinv
) are currently written assumingdim in (1, 2, 3)
. Would you consider PRs to the effect of getting rid of the dimension restriction? One could let certain continuum mechanics-related functions be restricted todim in (1, 2, 3)
and throw errors otherwise?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: