Mercurial > repos > public > sbplib_julia

comparison Notes.md @ 1100:157a78959e5d refactor/sbpoperators/inflation

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
Bring up to date
author Jonatan Werpers <jonatan@werpers.com>
date Tue, 10 May 2022 20:34:20 +0200
parents 396278072f18
children eeecdf135912 c0bff9f6e0fb 6757cc9ba22e 5f677cd6f0b6 e2f6dafb5d83
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
1099:05a25a5063bb 1100:157a78959e5d
134 134
135 Maybe if we should have dynamic sizing it could be only for the range. `domain_size` would not be implemented. And the `range_size` would be a function of a vector that the LazyTensor is applied to. 135 Maybe if we should have dynamic sizing it could be only for the range. `domain_size` would not be implemented. And the `range_size` would be a function of a vector that the LazyTensor is applied to.
136 136
137 ## Reasearch and thinking 137 ## Reasearch and thinking
138 - [ ] Use a trait to indicate that a LazyTensor har the same range and domain? 138 - [ ] Use a trait to indicate that a LazyTensor har the same range and domain?
139 - [ ] Rename all the Tensor stuff to just LazyOperator, LazyApplication and so on?
140 - [ ] Check how the native julia doc generator works 139 - [ ] Check how the native julia doc generator works
141 - [ ] Check if Vidars design docs fit in there 140 - [ ] Check if Vidars design docs fit in there
142 - [ ] Create a macro @lazy which replaces a binary op (+,-) by its lazy equivalent? Would be a neat way to indicate which evaluations are lazy without cluttering/confusing with special characters. 141 - [ ] Create a macro @lazy which replaces a binary op (+,-) by its lazy equivalent? Would be a neat way to indicate which evaluations are lazy without cluttering/confusing with special characters.
143 - [ ] Specificera operatorer i TOML eller något liknande?
144 H.. H_gamma etc.)
145 - [ ] Dispatch on Lower() instead of the type Lower so `::Lower` instead of `::Type{Lower}` ??? 142 - [ ] Dispatch on Lower() instead of the type Lower so `::Lower` instead of `::Type{Lower}` ???
146 Seems better unless there is some specific reason to use the type instead of the value. 143 Seems better unless there is some specific reason to use the type instead of the value.
147 - [ ] How do we handle mixes of periodic and non-periodic grids? Seems it should be supported on the grid level and on the 1d operator level. Between there it should be transparent. 144 - [ ] How do we handle mixes of periodic and non-periodic grids? Seems it should be supported on the grid level and on the 1d operator level. Between there it should be transparent.
148 - [ ] Can we have a trait to tell if a LazyTensor is transposable? 145 - [ ] Can we have a trait to tell if a LazyTensor is transposable?
149 - [ ] Is it ok to have "Constructors" for abstract types which create subtypes? For example a Grids() functions that gives different kind of grids based on input? 146 - [ ] Is it ok to have "Constructors" for abstract types which create subtypes? For example a Grids() functions that gives different kind of grids based on input?
150 - [ ] Figure out how to treat the borrowing parameters of operators. Include in into the struct? Expose via function dispatched on the operator type and grid? 147 - [ ] Figure out how to treat the borrowing parameters of operators. Include in into the struct? Expose via function dispatched on the operator type and grid?
151 148
149 ## Identifiers for regions
150 The identifiers (`Upper`, `Lower`, `Interior`) used for region indecies should probabily be included in the grid module. This allows new grid types to come with their own regions.
151
152 ## Regions and tensormappings 152 ## Regions and tensormappings
153 - [ ] Use a trait to indicate if a LazyTensor uses indices with regions. 153 - [ ] Use a trait to indicate if a LazyTensor uses indices with regions.
154 The default should be that they do NOT. 154 The default should be that they do NOT.
155 - [ ] What to name this trait? Can we call it IndexStyle but not export it to avoid conflicts with Base.IndexStyle? 155 - [ ] What to name this trait? Can we call it IndexStyle but not export it to avoid conflicts with Base.IndexStyle?
156 - [ ] Figure out repeated application of regioned LazyTensors. Maybe an instance of a tensor mapping needs to know the exact size of the range and domain for this to work? 156 - [ ] Figure out repeated application of regioned LazyTensors. Maybe an instance of a tensor mapping needs to know the exact size of the range and domain for this to work?
157
158 ### Ideas for information sharing functions
159 ```julia
160 using StaticArrays
161
162 function regions(op::SecondDerivativeVariable)
163 t = ntuple(i->(Interior(),),range_dim(op))
164 return Base.setindex(t, (Lower(), Interior(), Upper()), derivative_direction(op))
165 end
166
167 function regionsizes(op::SecondDerivativeVariable)
168 sz = tuple.(range_size(op))
169
170 cl = closuresize(op)
171 return Base.setindex(sz, (cl, n-2cl, cl), derivative_direction(op))
172 end
173
174
175 g = EquidistantGrid((11,9), (0.,0.), (10.,8.)) # h = 1
176 c = evalOn(g, (x,y)->x+y)
177
178 D₂ᶜ = SecondDerivativeVariable(g, c, interior_stencil, closure_stencils,1)
179 @test regions(D₂ᶜ) == (
180 (Lower(), Interior(), Upper()),
181 (Interior(),),
182 )
183 @test regionsizes(D₂ᶜ) == ((1,9,1),(9,))
184
185
186 D₂ᶜ = SecondDerivativeVariable(g, c, interior_stencil, closure_stencils,2)
187 @test regions(D₂ᶜ) == (
188 (Interior(),),
189 (Lower(), Interior(), Upper()),
190 )
191 @test regionsizes(D₂ᶜ) == ((11,),(1,7,1))
192 ```
193
157 194
158 ## Boundschecking and dimension checking 195 ## Boundschecking and dimension checking
159 Does it make sense to have boundschecking only in getindex methods? 196 Does it make sense to have boundschecking only in getindex methods?
160 This would mean no bounds checking in applys, however any indexing that they do would be boundschecked. The only loss would be readability of errors. But users aren't really supposed to call apply directly anyway. 197 This would mean no bounds checking in applys, however any indexing that they do would be boundschecked. The only loss would be readability of errors. But users aren't really supposed to call apply directly anyway.
161 198