Skip to content
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

improve support for binary operations on Operators #421

Merged
merged 8 commits into from Apr 17, 2018
Merged

improve support for binary operations on Operators #421

merged 8 commits into from Apr 17, 2018

Conversation

@sdrave
Copy link
Member

@sdrave sdrave commented Nov 23, 2017

No description provided.

@sdrave sdrave changed the title [WIP] improve support for binary operations on Operators improve support for binary operations on Operators Nov 27, 2017
@sdrave sdrave requested a review from pmli Nov 27, 2017
src/pymor/operators/interfaces.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
src/pymor/operators/basic.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Copy link
Member

@pmli pmli left a comment

LGTM besides small things.

@sdrave
Copy link
Member Author

@sdrave sdrave commented Jan 5, 2018

Do we want to handle products of operators in a similar fashion? If yes, should we use * or @ for concatenation? The latter is only available in Python 3.5 and greater. Dropping Python 3.4 seems ok to me. However, I am not sure if 3to2 can handle @.

@pmli
Copy link
Member

@pmli pmli commented Jan 8, 2018

It would be nice to have support for operator multiplication, although I rarely use ConcatenationOperator. Using * might also be a bit of an issue, since it's used for element-wise product in NumPy. How about using dot?

@sdrave
Copy link
Member Author

@sdrave sdrave commented Apr 17, 2018

Since Python 3.4 is not tested anymore on travis, I would propose that we choose Python 3.5 as a minim version. (Python 2 is dropped already.) Will implement Concetenation via @ ...

@sdrave sdrave added this to the 0.5 milestone Apr 17, 2018
@sdrave
Copy link
Member Author

@sdrave sdrave commented Apr 17, 2018

@pmli, if you are happy with the current state, I will merge soon with master.

@pmli
Copy link
Member

@pmli pmli commented Apr 17, 2018

@sdrave I'm happy.

@sdrave sdrave merged commit 049dfcc into master Apr 17, 2018
3 of 4 checks passed
3 of 4 checks passed
continuous-integration/travis-ci/push The Travis CI build failed
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/branch AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
@sdrave sdrave deleted the opaddmul branch Apr 17, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants