You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I merged TopoToolbox/libtopotoolbox#69, which changes the libtopotoolbox API to take a ptrdiff_t dims[2] instead of two separate arguments nrows and ncols. We should update the pytopotoolbox bindings accordingly.
For row-major arrays, one would create ptrdiff_t dims[2] = {ncols,nrows}, while for column-major arrays one uses ptrdiff_t dims[2] = {nrows,ncols}.
Ideally we would be able to pass the dimensions in the correct order and then skip the reordering steps that we introduced in #51.
I am not sure if it makes more sense to create the dims object in Python and pass it to the C++ binding or if we should pass the dimensions separately along with some kind of row/column major flag to the C++ binding and organize the dims array there.
This change will show up in the 2024-W31 release of libtopotoolbox on 29-07-2024.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I merged TopoToolbox/libtopotoolbox#69, which changes the libtopotoolbox API to take a
ptrdiff_t dims[2]
instead of two separate argumentsnrows
andncols
. We should update the pytopotoolbox bindings accordingly.For row-major arrays, one would create
ptrdiff_t dims[2] = {ncols,nrows}
, while for column-major arrays one usesptrdiff_t dims[2] = {nrows,ncols}
.Ideally we would be able to pass the dimensions in the correct order and then skip the reordering steps that we introduced in #51.
I am not sure if it makes more sense to create the
dims
object in Python and pass it to the C++ binding or if we should pass the dimensions separately along with some kind of row/column major flag to the C++ binding and organize thedims
array there.This change will show up in the 2024-W31 release of libtopotoolbox on 29-07-2024.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: