On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:38 PM, James Robinson <jamesr@google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Maybe the 2D'ness of a matrix can be implied by its construction and if >> you >> > apply 2d or 3d matrices or operations to it? >> >> I suspect this would be reasonable. You'd check for explicit 0s in >> the correct indexes at construction time, and then carry around a flag >> for whether it's 2d or not, which gets unset as soon as you perform a >> 3d operation. >> > > If we start carrying around internal state based on operations that have > happened on the objects values won't round-trip and two matrices with > identical values will return different answers, which I think will be very > surprising for users. > That should never happen. Doing a 2d operation on 2 2d matrices and then converting the result to 3D should be the same as doing that operation on 2 3D matrices.
Received on Thursday, 21 March 2013 02:23:27 UTC