Dirichlet Mapper assumes DenseVector?

[Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>]

Should the DirichletMapper really be assuming a DenseVector  
implementation?  Line 45?

-Grant

Re: Dirichlet Mapper assumes DenseVector?

[Jeff Eastman <jd...@windwardsolutions.com>]

Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> Should the DirichletMapper really be assuming a DenseVector 
> implementation?  Line 45?
>
> -Grant
>
>
No, an oversight. Should be AbstractVector.decodeVector. I will commit 
the fix.
Jeff

Re: Dirichlet Mapper assumes DenseVector?

[Jeff Eastman <jd...@windwardsolutions.com>]

I committed a fix a couple of days ago. The code should have been 
calling AbstractVector.decodeVector and not DenseVector. The recent fix 
is type-agnostic.


Ted Dunning wrote:
> I don't think that there should be such a preference.  If this is inherent
> in the structure of decoding, then we should probably fix that.
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Sebastien Bratieres <sb...@cam.ac.uk>wrote:
>
>   
>> One of the two implementations of decodeFormat is required at this point if
>> I understand the code well; should there be a preference towards
>> SparseVector ?
>>
>>
>>     
>
>   

Re: Dirichlet Mapper assumes DenseVector?

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

I don't think that there should be such a preference.  If this is inherent
in the structure of decoding, then we should probably fix that.

On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM, Sebastien Bratieres <sb...@cam.ac.uk>wrote:

> One of the two implementations of decodeFormat is required at this point if
> I understand the code well; should there be a preference towards
> SparseVector ?
>
>

Re: Dirichlet Mapper assumes DenseVector?

[Sebastien Bratieres <sb...@cam.ac.uk>]

One of the two implementations of decodeFormat is required at this point if
I understand the code well; should there be a preference towards
SparseVector ?

--
Sebastien

2009/6/13 Grant Ingersoll <gs...@apache.org>

> Should the DirichletMapper really be assuming a DenseVector implementation?
>  Line 45?
>
> -Grant
>