Open henry2004y opened 3 years ago
Probably I should rebase instead of merge... Forgive me as a terrible git user
Changes Missing Coverage | Covered Lines | Changed/Added Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
src/EmpiricalModeDecomposition.jl | 1 | 6 | 16.67% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 37 | 42 | 88.1% | --> |
Files with Coverage Reduction | New Missed Lines | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
src/testdata.jl | 4 | 0% | ||
src/EmpiricalModeDecomposition.jl | 6 | 34.21% | ||
<!-- | Total: | 10 | --> |
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 49: | 3.4% |
Covered Lines: | 94 |
Relevant Lines: | 185 |
This new implementation actually does not give identical results as the original version. I need to figure out why.
The reason is that I wrote imf=y
before creating SiftIterable
. I should either say imf = copy(y)
, or imf .= y
. Fixed in 2d25f77dde7a5
This is a PR for exploring the possibility of shifting towards the code structure of cg.jl in IterativeSolvers.jl. Compared with the current implementation, it shares the same ideas but in my view easier to follow and maintain:
SiftIterable
for storing sifting variables, instead of oneSiftIterable
and oneSiftState
. All the input variables and intermediate variables are kept in the same place, which may make it easier to add other extensions.iterate
method forSiftIterable
, and anothersift_iterator
method for initializingSiftIterable
. I think this is easier to understand than two dispatchediterate
methods.Besides, I changed some parts of the variable names, e.g.
maxes
-->maxs
,yvec
-->y
, but we can always make better names later.Take a look and we can discuss more about this!