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
Is this something worth adding? Happy to give it a go.
I see this is kind of supported for complex types. Is it preferable to just convert scalar fields to vector fields (via indexing) in the kernel?
I don't see any easy way of converting a n,m,3 field to a n,m vector3 field but I might be missing something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sorry for late reply. And yes, this can be helpful but I didn't do it because I didn't need this exact feature in my dogfooding.
However, for Tube, I have FieldManager, which you can use to do even more complicated optimizations.
If you want, you can write a simple and public subclass of FieldManager that creates vector and matrix fields. And I think it can be helpful.
As for Tin and EmptyTin, they are intended to be a thinnest layer and the field they received is created and managed by the programmer, so it's the responsibility of the programmer to decide how fields are created.
Is this something worth adding? Happy to give it a go.
I see this is kind of supported for complex types. Is it preferable to just convert scalar fields to vector fields (via indexing) in the kernel?
I don't see any easy way of converting a n,m,3 field to a n,m vector3 field but I might be missing something?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: