Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 28 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
Update Orth_proj #162
I reverted to copying array slicing. For these short cases it should be fine, but for more computational intensive lectures using
I just added something into the style guide on the views stuff. Basically, use matlab-style copying whenever possible, and then we can tell people to use
I also clarified the guiding principle in the style guide: we should maintain the direct correspondence between math and code even if the performance is lower. If it is so much lower that it really matters (after profiling/benchmarking!) then we can make an exception and explain it to people
On that note, lets add in equation numbers for lines of code while we do the rewrites. My comments are pretty much always going to be the same: if it looks exactly like the math, I will like it, and if it looks like code when the math was otherwise possible,, I won't :-) We want students to do the same thing, and when teaching we need to make the connections.
On that, just a reminder (which I don't think applies here) to use
Oh, I will add in a clarification on equation numbers in the style doc soon, but there is no need to add in equation numbers and the correspondence in the code if the code is clearly following a math block above it. In that case, the correspondence is implied.
The issue is when there is a block of code which uses an equation in the middle of it, or there as a few lines of code below some math blocks that use different formulas