[mlpack-git] [mlpack/mlpack] General greedy traverser. (#762)

MarcosPividori notifications at github.com
Fri Aug 19 14:52:47 EDT 2016

> @@ -309,14 +412,21 @@ class NeighborSearch
>    //! Return the number of node combination scores during the last search.
>    size_t Scores() const { return scores; }
> +  //! Access the search mode.
> +  NeighborSearchMode SearchMode() const { return searchMode; }
> +  //! Modify the search mode.
> +  void SetSearchMode(const NeighborSearchMode mode);

@rcurtin  Yes, I agree that it is preferable to have: `NeighborSearchMode& SearchMode()`
Suppose I add that method, the problem it this:
Until mlpack 3.0.0, we have the modifiers: `Naive()` and `SingleMode()`.
So, when a method is called, and I see a difference between the booleans values: `naive` and `singleMode` and the member `searchMode` (for example: `naive == true` , `singleMode == false` , `searchMode == DUAL_TREE_MODE` ) we don't know which fields were modified, the boolean flags `naive` and `singleMode`, or the `searchMode` member.  So, I don't know if the user want to do naive search or dual tree search.
Because of that I decided to include a  member `SetSearchMode()`.
One solution I can think, I am not sure if this is what you suggested, is to include the modifier `SearchMode()` and a comment like:
"Untile mlpack 3.0.0, if you modify the SearchMode, you also have to modify the flags Naive() and SingleMode()"
What do you think?

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.cc.gatech.edu/pipermail/mlpack-git/attachments/20160819/ab31c7e0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the mlpack-git mailing list