matrix

[CresitelloDittmar, Mark]

OK.. I just figure that if this is the only form of Matrix that we need to
support, there is no need to qualify the object name to be 2D.


On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 11:11 AM Laurent MICHEL <
laurent.michel at astro.unistra.fr> wrote:

>
>
> Le 03/04/2020 à 16:58, CresitelloDittmar, Mark a écrit :
> > Ah, I see..
> >    You're suggesting we need to support MxNxP matrices (or more).
> No, this was just an example to illustrate what I was saying.
>


> >    I think an earlier version of the model had an abstract Matrix, with
> > Matrix2D.. we could go back to that, allowing for Matrix3D, etc
> extensions.
> >    Or forgo the abstract head and just rename it.
> In the model, Matrix clearly refers to a 2D matrix.
> Regarding the model scope, there is no need for matrices of whatever
> dimension, therefore there is non need for any high level of abstraction.
> I suggest Matrix2D(nb_cols, nb_rows)
>

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ivoa.net/pipermail/dm/attachments/20200403/939ae3ab/attachment-0001.html>