JuliaGaussianProcesses / JuliaGaussianProcesses/ParameterHandling.jl
AbstractArray -> StridedArray
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Julia
- Stars
- 74
- Forks
- 10
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
#21 essentially points out that we have the same problem that we see regularly in the AD world, where a sensible implementation of flatten for e.g. a sparse array or Fill is not the same as a sensible implementation for e.g. a StridedArray.
Should be a quick fix. We probably need to copy over + tweak the code for to_vec for general structs so that flatten gives you the struct interpretation of an array by default.
Disclaimer: I'm assuming thay if a user writes Fill(5.0, 10) then they want to constrain this vector to be a Fill throughout e.g. optimisation, and that if this weren't the case said user would write fill(5.0, 10).
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reading issue #21 and locating the existing to_vec implementation and flatten entry points. Compare behavior for general structs, sparse arrays, Fill, and StridedArray; done means flatten uses the struct interpretation by default while preserving sensible specialized behavior for array types.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- julia
- Domain
- tooling
- Issue type
- Bug
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 40/100