-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 399
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
Implement value for GenericQuadExpr. #1588
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was once told that it is not safe to call
promote_op
on top ofpromote_op
, see JuliaLang/julia#18218 (comment).So maybe something like
RetType = Base.promote_op((c, v) -> c * foo(v) * foo(v), CoefType, VarType)
is better.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just followed
https://github.com/JuliaOpt/JuMP.jl/blob/6daac7ae3105d1c2ddcd44a1324acd3769fcef64/src/aff_expr.jl#L105-L113
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I never understood the argument so I am not surprised to see that I am not following it :-P
In fact, it appears that using
promote_op
is just bad: JuliaLang/julia#26344 (comment)So the best way is just to play with
typeof
,zero
,one
andoneunit
. To choose whether to useone
oroneunit
you need to think what would happen if the type was frim Unitful. For choosing betweenzero
andone
, you have some freedom but you need to avoid dividing by zero.Maybe the best way here is doing
typeof(oneunit(CoefType) * oneunit(MapVarType) * oneunit(MapVarType))
. We are kind of forced to usepromote_op
to getMapVarType
sinceone
... would onJuMP.VariableRef
would not really do what we want.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we have to use
promote_op
here because the variables get passed throughfoo
...Alternatively, we just avoid the
value
result_value
misdirection and write aresult_value
function knowing that it will get aFloat64
back...