Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Improve matrix inequality support #3778

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Improve matrix inequality support #3778

wants to merge 14 commits into from

Conversation

odow
Copy link
Member

@odow odow commented Jun 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Follow-up to #3766.

In our discussion of #3766, we never really talked about the fact that == is not ambiguous.
@odow odow changed the title Add symmetric matrix equality support Jun 25, 2024
odow
odow commented Jun 25, 2024
View reviewed changes
test/test_macros.jl Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@codecov Codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 25, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.39%. Comparing base (4db5a0c) to head (77af7fa).

Additional details and impacted files 
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #3778   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.39%   98.39%           
=======================================
  Files          44       44           
  Lines        5905     5932   +27     
=======================================
+ Hits         5810     5837   +27     
  Misses         95       95

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
@odow odow changed the title Add Array equality support Jun 25, 2024
@blegat
Copy link
Member

blegat commented Jul 1, 2024

Can we just replace Nonnegatives here:

JuMP.jl/src/macros/@constraint.jl

Line 583 in 301d46e

operator_to_set(::Function, ::Union{Val{:(>=)},Val{:(≥)}}) = Nonnegatives()

What are the other cases that you'd like to intercept ?
@odow
Copy link
Member Author

odow commented Jul 13, 2024

I didn't do this, because it could be interpreted as a breaking change.
@odow odow requested a review from blegat July 15, 2024 23:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
2 participants
@odow @blegat