Create seq class for C++ API about arrayfire HOT 8 CLOSED

Hello,
The following code is working with AF 2.0, but it makes an error in AF 3.0. How can I implement af::seq with arrayfire open source library?

int m = 5;
array i = seq(m);

from arrayfire.

@hakttari I think we missed this functionality during the code refactor. I have created an feature request for this. You can follow up on progress here

from arrayfire.

This functionality is replaced by iota. The function definition are shown below.
The rep argument allows a repetition dimension to be chosen.

AFAPI array iota(const dim4 &dims, const unsigned rep = 3, af_dtype ty=f32);
    AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const unsigned rep = 0, af_dtype ty=f32);
    AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const dim_type d1,
                     const unsigned rep = 1, af_dtype ty=f32);
    AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const dim_type d1, const dim_type d2,
                     const unsigned rep = 2, af_dtype ty=f32);
    AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const dim_type d1, const dim_type d2,
                     const dim_type d3, const unsigned rep = 3, af_dtype ty=f32);

from arrayfire.

What's the point of taking it out? Why shouldn't we put it back in?

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Shehzan Mohammed [email protected]
wrote:

This functionality is replaced by iota. The function definition are shown
below.
The rep argument allows a repetition dimension to be chosen.

AFAPI array iota(const dim4 &dims, const unsigned rep = 3, af_dtype ty=f32);
AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const unsigned rep = 0,
af_dtype ty=f32);
AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const dim_type d1,
const unsigned rep = 1, af_dtype ty=f32);
AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const dim_type d1, const dim_type d2,
const unsigned rep = 2, af_dtype ty=f32);
AFAPI array iota(const dim_type d0, const dim_type d1, const dim_type d2,
const dim_type d3, const unsigned rep = 3,
af_dtype ty=f32);

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#51 (comment).

from arrayfire.

iota is more complete than seq. We can have a wrapper for this particular operation, but ideally I'd prefer if we forced the usage iota as opposed to seq.

from arrayfire.

We shouldn't break things unless there is a good reason.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2014, at 11:57 PM, Pavan Yalamanchili [email protected]
wrote:

iota is more complete than seq. We can have a wrapper for this particular
operation, but ideally I'd prefer if we forced the usage iota as opposed to
seq.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#51 (comment).

from arrayfire.

@shehzan10 Can you create a wrapper for this to use iota internally ?

from arrayfire.

@hakttari This has been added to the current devel branch.

from arrayfire.