On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Barry Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bsmith@mcs.anl.gov">bsmith@mcs.anl.gov</a>></span> wrote:<br><br>I thought the idea was that MatGetArray() never applies to a sparse matrix. No other<br>
sparse format supports this, does it?<br><br> Matt<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Good point.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Barry</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On Jun 30, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Stephan Kramer wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hello,<br>
<br>
Why is it that MatGetArrayF90 returns a pointer to a 2d scalar array, instead of 1d as stated in the documentation? In fact it seems to always return a nrows x ncolumns array. Is this to deal with the MATDENSE case? Would it not be more elegant to always return a 1d array, so you get what you expect for the sparse matrices, and return a 1d array of length nrows*ncolumns in the case of MATDENSE?<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Stephan Kramer<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Stephan Kramer<br>
Applied Modelling and Computation Group,<br>
Department of Earth Science and Engineering,<br>
Imperial College London<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead.<br>
-- Norbert Wiener<br>