]math[ please look at MAHOUT-256

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

I think that other eyeballs should be applied, however briefly and
painfully, to MAHOUT-256.

In addition, I propose to REMOVE the ObjectFactory{1,2,3}D classes. No
one uses them, and they would require significant API surgery to be
genric-cleaned. Since they have protected constructors and no static
methods, it seems reasonable to apply the surgeon's motto as
previously discussed.

Re: ]math[ please look at MAHOUT-256

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Sounds right

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I propose as follows: (1) commit what I've got, and then try the
> experiment of blowing off the object matrices and see if anything is
> left to squeak.
>



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

Re: ]math[ please look at MAHOUT-256

[Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>]

It seems to me that the matrix classes are using the object functions
in a fairly clean way. If you are doing, well, a reduction over a
matrix<T>, you need a function that takes two T's and returns a T.

Assuming, of course, that matrices of Objects are any more useful then
bicycles for lobsters. If you want me to put cement overshows on the
whole concept of an Object matrix, that's fine. I can't find any
evidence that they are used, but I'm not 100% sure.

I propose as follows: (1) commit what I've got, and then try the
experiment of blowing off the object matrices and see if anything is
left to squeak.



On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I looked at the patch here and wondered if all of this code could just as
> well be lost rather than generifying it.  In particular, the ObjectFunction
> assumption that argument and result types are the same looks like trouble
> waiting to happen.  Deleting the code won't cause any more trouble to a
> prospective user than leaving it with implausible assumptions that we can't
> fathom yet.
>
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I think that other eyeballs should be applied, however briefly and
>> painfully, to MAHOUT-256.
>>
>> In addition, I propose to REMOVE the ObjectFactory{1,2,3}D classes. No
>> one uses them, and they would require significant API surgery to be
>> genric-cleaned. Since they have protected constructors and no static
>> methods, it seems reasonable to apply the surgeon's motto as
>> previously discussed.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ted Dunning, CTO
> DeepDyve
>

Re: ]math[ please look at MAHOUT-256

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

I looked at the patch here and wondered if all of this code could just as
well be lost rather than generifying it.  In particular, the ObjectFunction
assumption that argument and result types are the same looks like trouble
waiting to happen.  Deleting the code won't cause any more trouble to a
prospective user than leaving it with implausible assumptions that we can't
fathom yet.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I think that other eyeballs should be applied, however briefly and
> painfully, to MAHOUT-256.
>
> In addition, I propose to REMOVE the ObjectFactory{1,2,3}D classes. No
> one uses them, and they would require significant API surgery to be
> genric-cleaned. Since they have protected constructors and no static
> methods, it seems reasonable to apply the surgeon's motto as
> previously discussed.
>



-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve

Re: ]math[ please look at MAHOUT-256

[Ted Dunning <te...@gmail.com>]

Please.

I have wanted those to go away literally for years.  They made my life hell
every time I tried to simplify Colt.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Benson Margulies <bi...@gmail.com>wrote:

> I propose to REMOVE the ObjectFactory{1,2,3}D classes.




-- 
Ted Dunning, CTO
DeepDyve