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
This is much simpler, at the cost of an allocation.
For cases where we end up building an array of Diracs only to later take a product, we should look for ways to think ahead, so we can jump straight to this second representation. In this case we can often avoid the allocation.
I don't think there's a need to have a single canonical form for this. We can instead add some methods to deal with ProductMeasure{<:AbstractArray{<:Dirac}} and take advantage of this structure.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, a product of
Dirac
s works like this:In some cases, we might prefer to write this as
This is much simpler, at the cost of an allocation.
For cases where we end up building an array of
Dirac
s only to later take a product, we should look for ways to think ahead, so we can jump straight to this second representation. In this case we can often avoid the allocation.I don't think there's a need to have a single canonical form for this. We can instead add some methods to deal with
ProductMeasure{<:AbstractArray{<:Dirac}}
and take advantage of this structure.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: