-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Go back from BangBang convention to enforcing mutation? #168
Comments
Main problems spotted:
|
I assume DiffResults predates the bang bang convention. But similar to the discussion in the other thread IMO this behaviour (note that these examples are for immutable arrays!) is not relevant for the point I'm trying to make: When you require/assume mutable containers, then you should directly use the more direct and more efficient inplace function. Bang bang is useful for generic code that accepts both mutable and immutable arrays. |
The code in DI is trying to be as generic as possible, but I realized yesterday that every downstream user, myself included, would have to make heavy use of copyto!(x, operator!!(x)) which is suboptimal, so I am indeed working to change that |
Just to keep track of the discussion with @devmotion: SciML/OptimizationBase.jl#31 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: