Nested slicing operations for merging blocks #466
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #466 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 93.64% 93.70% +0.06%
==========================================
Files 19 19
Lines 1667 1683 +16
==========================================
+ Hits 1561 1577 +16
Misses 106 106 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes #359.
This introduces a syntax
A[[Block(1), Block(2)], [Block(1), Block(2)]]for merging blocks 1 and 2 into a "superblock" along each axis, and also adds some related block merge operations that also includes slicing subblocks such asA[[Block(1)[1:2], Block(2)[1:2]], [Block(1)[1:2], Block(2)[1:2]]]. The implementation is very similar to #445.It feels unfortunate that these have to be done "by hand" through dispatch in this way as opposed to some more generic way of handling nested slices, but I can't think a better way (besides introducing a custom slicing operation).