Open andreasnoack opened 5 years ago
As I said on the other issue, would have to be a LinearAlgebra 2.0 change unless we genuinely believe that no one out there is using this feature.
I already added the "breaking" label. Is there another way to label 2.0 changes?
The 2.0 milestone.
Should the cases 0 < p < 1
be deprecated for the same reason? They're p
, but they're not norm
s.
I think it's okay to allow 0 < p < 1
since it the same definition as for p >= 1
.
Another option would be to not take the power 1/p for 0<=p<1. Even more breaking, but then the definition for p=0
remains continuous (and thus makes sense as the limit), and it is also continuous at p=1
(but probably not smooth?). This seems to be a choice that is sometimes (often?) made in the context of L^p spaces I think, but I am not very familiar with that.
It's not a norm and it's not
p
(in the same way asnorm(x,p)
forp>0
). See the discussion in https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/30631. It currently behaves asnorm(x,p)^p -> norm(x,0)
inp
so it's questionable to bundle this functionality insidenorm(x,p)
. Sure, it can be useful to count the number of non-zeros in an array butcount(!iszero, x)
should be just fine for that.