Mercurial > repos > public > sbplib_julia
comparison Notes.md @ 1050:396278072f18
Add some notes and clean up TODO.md a little bit
author | Jonatan Werpers <jonatan@werpers.com> |
---|---|
date | Wed, 23 Mar 2022 13:09:31 +0100 |
parents | 6b94663f4376 |
children | eeecdf135912 c0bff9f6e0fb 6757cc9ba22e 5f677cd6f0b6 e2f6dafb5d83 |
comparison
equal
deleted
inserted
replaced
1043:c16116e403e2 | 1050:396278072f18 |
---|---|
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. | 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. |
145 - [ ] 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? |
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? | 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? |
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? | 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? |
148 | 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 | |
149 ## Regions and tensormappings | 152 ## Regions and tensormappings |
150 - [ ] 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. |
151 The default should be that they do NOT. | 154 The default should be that they do NOT. |
152 - [ ] 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? |
153 - [ ] 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 | |
154 | 194 |
155 ## Boundschecking and dimension checking | 195 ## Boundschecking and dimension checking |
156 Does it make sense to have boundschecking only in getindex methods? | 196 Does it make sense to have boundschecking only in getindex methods? |
157 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. |
158 | 198 |