SP: add equals operator== #7
Conversation
| sp.getBoostFactors(boostFactors2); | ||
| ASSERT_TRUE(check_vector_eq(boostFactors1, boostFactors2, numColumns)); | ||
| delete[] boostFactors1; | ||
| delete[] boostFactors2; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems like some optimization. Q: keep the delete[] (saves memory), or remove it (saves cycles, as the local memory is unallocated anyway at the end of the function/scope)
| sp2.getSynPermTrimThreshold())); | ||
| cout << "check: " << sp1.getSynPermActiveInc() << " " << | ||
| sp2.getSynPermActiveInc() << endl; | ||
| ASSERT_TRUE(almost_eq(sp1.getSynPermActiveInc(), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
TODO: many uses of almost_eq() can be replaced with gtest native EXCEPT_NEAR(a, b, diff); and the function can be removed from SPTest class.
https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googletest/docs/AdvancedGuide.md
Although, for the comparisons we need a boolean, not an assert; so we'd have to keep the function?
We'll just implement the small almost_eq method ; see "twice" in the example
numenta#1384 (comment)
| auto boostFactors2 = new Real[numColumns]; | ||
| sp1.getBoostFactors(boostFactors1); | ||
| sp2.getBoostFactors(boostFactors2); | ||
| ASSERT_TRUE(check_vector_eq(boostFactors1, boostFactors2, numColumns)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Another function is check_vector_eq(); used in two scenarios:
- comparing
array[]withvector<>. this could be avoided ei byvector.data() - for 2 vectors of Real, it calls
almost_eqelement-wise; I'm not sure if that can be done implicitly without the need for such function?
check_vector_eq should be implemented as std::equal() with the "twice" example:
http://www.tenouk.com/cpluscodesnippet/cplusstlvectoralgorithmequal.html
| auto potential2 = new UInt[numInputs]; | ||
| sp1.getPotential(i, potential1); | ||
| sp2.getPotential(i, potential2); | ||
| ASSERT_TRUE(check_vector_eq(potential1, potential2, numInputs)); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the case where check is within a for loop, so we'll have to create a variable that covers the whole loop:
bool allPotentialsEq = true;
for (..)
allPotentialsEq == allPotEq && check_vector_eq(..)
breznak
added
code
|
don't know if this is the place to mention this or not. I think the only way to do this right is to add a virtual operator==() in RegionImpl such that it will force all implementations to implement it. |
|
or remove it from the Region.
but I think this sounds reasonable, a RegionImpl would compare some of its settings, and then defer to sp/tm/...== |
|
Since this is not part of my current PR I will defer that one for things to
do.
For now we must remember that comparing two Network or Region objects in a
test, will probably not be very accurate.
…On Sat, Aug 18, 2018 at 5:56 PM breznak ***@***.***> wrote:
or remove it from the Region.
think the only way to do this right is to add a virtual operator==() in
RegionImpl such that it will force all implementations to implement it.
but I think this sounds reasonable, a RegionImpl would compare some of its
settings, and then defer to sp/tm/...==
—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#7 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFBa_xtYckdCFSuYJLQwuYpr2jBDIUUoks5uSLehgaJpZM4RkVos>
.
|
|
Replaced by #133 |
Aims to implement
equalsfor two SpatialPooler instances for more convenient comparisons & tests.Fixes: numenta#1383
Used for numenta#1380
Moved from numenta#1384