# Tag Archives: usage

## Release Notes ILNumerics 4.13 (detailed)

See this changelog for a quick list of all changes in version 4.13. Here we dive into some details about specific topics.

## Visualization Engine Improvements

The main goal of the GDI renderer is still to provide a fully compatible alternative to the OpenGL renderer. It automatically replaces the OpenGL default renderer if a problem / incompatible hardware etc. was detected at runtime. The focus lays on feature completeness and precision of the rendering result. The quality of the GDI renderer has been further improved to these regards in 4.13. Changes affect the following low level rendering features.

### Antialiasing

Lines now recognize the ILLines.Antialiasing property for thick lines (Width > 2). The antialised rendering works in all situations: transparent lines, lines with stipple patterns, inside /outside of plot cubes and for logartithmic / linear axis scales. The quality of the antialiasing implementation is now on par with common OpenGL implementations.

The new default value for ILLines.Antialiasing is now true. However, thin lines would not profit from antialiasing, hence thin lines will continue to ignore the value of the ILLines.Antialiasing property.

Note, that some OpenGL drivers actually refuse to render certain combinations of line properties. We experienced such behavior for stippled, thick line strips having antialiased rendering configured. In such situations you should make sure to have the most recent OpenGL / graphics card drivers installed. Alternatively you may chose either stippled pattern – / or antialiased rendering by explicitly configuring your lines for either one setting. Or use the GDI renderer instead.

Following is a screenshot of some lines examples. The left side shows the OpenGL renderer result. On the right side the GDI version is shown. Use your browser to show the full, unscaled image (right click on the image):

… and with dotted lines:

### Default Color for ILLines & ILLineStrip

Basic, low level line shapes are now created with a default color: black. Higher level objects (as ILLinePlot, ILSplinePlot, Markers, ILSurface etc.) should always provide a color for low-level objects or use vertex based coloring explicitly. If you are assembling your scene with the low level line objects make sure to check that you have done this. This is not a breaking change.

Note that the setting for the shapes Color property overrides the vertex colors buffer (Colors property). In order to use vertex based coloring one must set the Color property to null, enabling the colors information from the Colors buffer.

### Auto Color for Spline Plots

ILSplinePlot (derived from ILLinePlot) now adopts the auto-coloring feature from the ILLinePlot class. When no line color was given at the time the plot was created the color gets assigned which comes next in the ILLinePlot.NextColor color enumeration. Use the linecolor constructor argument of ILSplinePlot or the Line.Color property in order to control the color of the spline line explicitly.

### Camera Default Depth: 100

In earlier versions the default ILCamera.ZFar value was 1000 which led to depth buffer precision issues in some situations. The new default value of 100 increases the depth buffer precision significantly. However, the new value (just like the old one) does not take into account the actual depth of your scene! If you encounter unwanted clipping in the far clippping area now, set the value for scene.Camera.ZFar explicitly. At best you know the depth of your scene and use this value. Or – more simple – use the old default of 1000:

 scene.Camera.ZFar = 1000;

## Visual Studio 2017 Compatibility

With the new version ILNumerics installs into the great, fresh new Visual Studio 2017 (released March 2017). … well, at least ‘kind of’…  What is true is that with 4.13 you can again use ILNumerics in all recent Visual Studio editions supporting extensions at all (which is all editions except Express Edition – I wonder if anyone is using this, still??), including Visual Studio 2017 Community Edition. This is great and all … but:

As you noticed there was a great deal of changes coming with VS2017. This includes the installer system which is – great attempt! – much more slim now by omitting unneeded stuff from the installation. But VS2017 also requires changes to the manifest files facilitating every Visual Studio Extensibility project. A new version has been introduced: version3. This is the first version which is not compatible with Visual Studio 2010 anymore. As a consequence, by supporting the new extension packaging system we would be required to drop support for Visual Studio 2010. This is not too dramatic since the 6 years VS2010 is out now feel kind of an eternity in our dev-world. However, we wanted to give the remaining VS2010 customers at least one version iteration of deprecating VS2010 in order to jump to a more recent version smoothly.

Additionally, the way the new VS installer works seems to reflect not the last word spoken on that topic (at least this is what we hope). The bottom line: we use an MSI installer, wrapped in an exe bootstrapper. The MSI installs all GAC binaries, registers the development dlls in Visual Studio, maintains the singleton installation directory and triggers the VSIX installer which installs the extension into all supported Visual Studio installations located on the system. This may sound complicated but worked quite reliably over the years.

Now, with the new Visual Studio package system things become odd. Out of subtle reasons, the MSI cannot (reliably) trigger the VSIX package automatically (and quietly). The reason becomes obvious when considering that the new extension potentially needs to trigger the installation of new components which it depends on. This install would not be possible while the hosting MSI is being installed itself still. So, as a consequence, currently, MSI installs of VSIX extensions into VS2017 are simply not working. When you start the ILNumerics installation from the delivered *.exe you will find the extension being installed into VS2010 and upwards – with the exception of Visual Studio 2017

Currently, some smart (WIX) people are attempting a solution to this. But we are not aware of a clean solution released already. Therefore, we will wait for it and/or eventually consider a new deployment scheme for our extensions.

However, luckily there is a simple workaround for now! After the ILNumerics installation was finished, you can easily install our extension into VS2017 manually. Just go to the installation folder (by default: C:\Program Files (x86)\ILNumerics\ILNumerics Ultimate VS\bin) and find the ‘ILNumerics.VSExtension.vsix’ file. Double click on it to start the installation into the remaining Visual Studio instances manually. This should work without problems. Be sure to accept the warning dialog during the install. It originates from the fact that our extension must still support older Visual Studio extension techniques.

Keep in mind that this is a workaround, though! Once installed the extension will work as expected. But some things will not work consistentyl. Deinstallation, for example must be done manually from the “Extensions and Tools” dialog within Visual Studio 2017:

Also, in difference to the machine wide installation done by the (administrative) MSI install the manual VSIX installation changes the local user account only. You may have to repeat the VSIX install for other user accounts. Besides these lowered installation experience we know of no other incompatibilities in Visual Studio 2017.

## ILNumerics Language Features: Limitations for C#, Part II: Compound operators and ILArray

A while ago I blogged about why the CSharp var keyword cannot be used with local ILNumerics arrays (ILArray<T>, ILCell, ILLogical). This post is about the other one of the two main limitations on C# language features in ILNumerics: the use of compound operators in conjunction with ILArray<T>. In the online documentation we state the rule as follows:

The following features of the C# language are not compatible with the memory management of ILNumerics and its use is not supported:

• The C# var keyword in conjunction with any ILNumerics array types, and
• Any compound operator, like +=, -=, /=, *= a.s.o. Exactly spoken, these operators are not allowed in conjunction with the indexer on arrays. So A += 1; is allowed. A[0] += 1; is not!

Let’s take a closer look at the second rule. Most developers think of compound operators as being just syntactic sugar for some common expressions:

int i = 1;
i += 2;

… would simply expand to:

int i = 1;
i  = i + 2; 

For such simple types like an integer variable the actual effect will be indistinguishable from that expectation. However, compound operators introduce a lot more than that. Back in his times at Microsoft, Eric Lippert blogged about those subtleties. The article is worth reading for a deep understanding of all side effects. In the following, we will focus on the single fact, which becomes important in conjunction with ILNumerics arrays: when used with a compound operator, i in the example above is only evaluated once! In difference to that, in i = i + 2, i is evaluated twice.

Evaluating an int does not cause any side effects. However, if used on more complex types, the evaluation may does cause side effects. An expression like the following:

ILArray<double> A = 1;
A += 2;

… evaluates to something similiar to this:

ILArray<double> A = 1;
A = (ILArray<double>)(A + 2); 

There is nothing wrong with that! A += 2 will work as expected. Problems arise, if we include indexers on A:

ILArray<double> A = ILMath.rand(1,10);
A[0] += 2;
// this transforms to something similar to the following:
var index = (ILRetArray<double>)0;
receiver[index] = receiver[index] + 2; 

In order to understand what exactly is going on here, we need to take a look at the definition of indexers on ILArray:

public ILRetArray<ElementType> this[params ILBaseArray[] range] { ...

The indexer expects a variable length array of ILBaseArray. This gives most flexibility for defining subarrays in ILNumerics. Indexers allow not only scalars of builtin system types as in our example, but arbitrary ILArray and string definitions. In the expression A[0], 0 is implicitly converted to a scalar ILNumerics array before the indexer is invoked. Thus, a temporary array is created as argument. Keep in mind, due to the memory management of ILNumerics, all such implicitly created temporary arrays are immediately disposed off after the first use.

Since both, the indexing expression 0 and the object where the indexer is defined for (i.e.: A) are evaluated only once, we run into a problem: index is needed twice. At first, it is used to acquire the subarray at receiver[index]. The indexer get { ...}  function is used for that. Once it returns, all input arguments are disposed – an important foundation of ILNumerics memory efficency! Therefore, if we invoke the index setter function with the same index variable, it will find the array being disposed already – and throws an exception.

It would certainly be possible to circumvent that behavior by converting scalar system types to ILArray instead of ILRetArray:

ILArray A = ...;
A[(ILArray)0] += 2;

However, the much less expressive syntax aside, this would not solve our problem in general either. The reason lies in the flexibility required for the indexer arguments. The user must manually ensure, all arguments in the indexer argument list are of some non-volatile array type. Casting to ILArray<T> might be an option in some situations. However, in general, compound operators require much more attention due to the efficient memory management in ILNumerics. We considered the risk of failing to provide only non-volatile arguments too high. So we decided not to support compound operators at all.

See: General Rules for ILNumerics, Function Rules, Subarrays

## Using ILArray as Class Attributes

A lot of people are confused about how to use ILArray as class member variables. The documentation is really sparse on this topic. So let’s get into it!

Take the following naive approach:

class Test {

ILArray<double> m_a;

public Test() {
using (ILScope.Enter()) {
m_a = ILMath.rand(100, 100);
}
}

public void Do() {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("m_a:" + m_a.ToString());
}

}


If we run this:

    Test t = new Test();
t.Do();


… we get … an exception Why that?

## ILNumerics Arrays as Class Attributes

1. If an ILNumerics array is used as class member, it must be a local ILNumerics array: ILArray<T>
2. Initialization of those types must utilize a special function: ILMath.localMember<T>
3. Assignments to the local variable must utilize the .a property (.Assign() function in VB)
4. Classes with local array members should implement the IDisposable interface.
5. UPDATE: it is recommended to mark all ILArray local members as readonly

By applying the rules 1..3, the corrected example displays:

class Test {

ILArray<double> m_a = ILMath.localMember<double>();

public Test() {
using (ILScope.Enter()) {
m_a.a = ILMath.rand(100,100);
}
}

public void Do() {
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("m_a:" + m_a.ToString());
}

}


This time, we get, as expected:

m_a:<Double> [100,100]
0,50272    0,21398    0,66289    0,75169    0,64011    0,68948    0,67187    0,32454    0,75637    0,07517    0,70919    0,71990    0,90485    0,79115    0,06920    0,21873    0,10221 ...
0,73964    0,61959    0,60884    0,59152    0,27218    0,31629    0,97323    0,61203    0,31014    0,72146    0,55119    0,43210    0,13197    0,41965    0,48213    0,39704    0,68682 ...
0,41224    0,47684    0,33983    0,16917    0,11035    0,19571    0,28410    0,70209    0,36965    0,84124    0,13361    0,39570    0,56504    0,94230    0,70813    0,24816    0,86502 ...
0,85803    0,13391    0,87444    0,77514    0,78207    0,42969    0,16267    0,19860    0,32069    0,41191    0,19634    0,14786    0,13823    0,55875    0,87828    0,98742    0,04404 ...
0,70365    0,52921    0,22790    0,34812    0,44606    0,96938    0,05116    0,84701    0,89024    0,73485    0,67458    0,26132    0,73829    0,10154    0,26001    0,60780    0,01866 ...
...


If you came to this post while looking for a short solution to an actual problem, you may stop reading here. The scheme will work out fine, if the rules above are blindly followed. However, for the interested user, we’ll dive into the dirty details next.

## Some unimportant Details

Now, let’s inspect the reasons behind. They are somehow complex and most users can silently ignore them. But here they are:

The first rule is easy. Why should one use anything else than a local array? So lets step to rule two:

• Initialization of those types must utilize a special function: ILMath.localMember<T>

A fundamental mechanism of the ILNumerics memory management is related to the associated livetime of certain array types. All functions return temporary arrays (ILRetArray<T>) which do only live for exactly one use. After the first use, they get disposed off automatically. In order to make use of such arrays multiple times, one needs to assign them to a local variable. This is the place, where they get converted and the underlying storage is taken for the local, persistent array variable.

At the same time, we need to make sure, the array is released after the current ILNumerics scope (using (ILScope.Enter())) { … }) was left. Thereforem the conversion to a local array is used. During the conversion, since we know, there is going to be a new array out there, we track the new array for later disposal in the current scope.

If the scope is left, it does exactly what it promises: it disposes off all arrays created since its creation. Now, local array members require a different behavior. They commonly live for the livetime of the class – not of the current ILNumerics scope. In order to prevent the local array to get cleaned up after the scope in the constructor body was left, we need something else.

The ILMath.localMember() function is the only exception to the rule. It is the only function, which does not return a temporary array, but a local array. In fact, the function is more than simple. All it does, is to create a new ILArray<T> and return that. Since bothe types of both sides of the assignment match, no conversion is necessary and the new array is not registered in the current scope, hence it is not disposed off – just what we need!

What, if we have to assign the return value from any function to the local array? Here, the next rule jumps in:

• Assignments to the local variable must utilize the .a property (.Assign() function in VB)

Assigning to a local array directly would activate the disposal mechanism described above. Hence, in order to prevent this for a longer living class attribute, one needs to assign to the variable via the .a property. In Visual Basic, the .Assign() function does the same. This will prevent the array from getting registered into the scope.

## Example ILNumerics Array Utilization Class

Now, that we archieved to prevent our local array attribute from getting disposed off magically, we – for the sake of completeness – should make sure, it gets disposed somewhere. The recommended way of disposing off things in .NET is … the IDisposal interface. In fact, for most scenarios, IDisposal is not necessary. The array would freed, once the application is shut down. But we recommend implementing IDisposable, since it makes a lot of things more consistent and error safe. However, we provide the IDisposable interface for convenience reasons only – we do not rely on it like we would for the disposal of unmanaged ressources. Therefore, a simplified version is sufficient here and we can omit the finalizer method for the class.

Here comes the full test class example, having all rules implemented:

class Test : IDisposable {
// declare local array attribute as ILArray<T>,
// initialize with ILMath.localMember<T>()!

public Test() {
using (ILScope.Enter()) {
// assign via .a property only!
m_a.a = ILMath.rand(100,100);
}
}

public void Do() {
// assign via .a property only!
m_a.a = m_a + 2;

System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("m_a:" + m_a.ToString());
}

#region IDisposable Members
// implement IDisposable for the class for transparent
// clean up by the user of the class. This is for con-
// venience only. No harm is done by ommitting the
// call to Dispose().
public void Dispose() {
// simplified disposal pattern: we allow
// calling dispose multiple times or not at all.
if (!ILMath.isnull(m_a)) {
m_a.Dispose();
}
}

#endregion
}


For the user of your class, this brings one big advantage: she can – without knowing the details – clean up its storage easily.


using (Test t = new Test()) {
t.Do();
}


@UPDATE: by declaring your ILArray members as readonly one gains the convenience that the compiler will prevent you from accidentally assigning to the member somewhere in the code. The other rules must still be fullfilled. But by only using readonly ILArray<T> the rest is almost automatically.

## ILArray, Properties and Lazy Initialization

@UPDATE2: Another common usage pattern for local class attributes is to delay the initialization to the first use. Let’s say, an attribute requires costly computations but is not needed always. One would usually create a property and compute the attribute value only in the get accessor:

class Class {

// attribute, initialization is done in the property get accessor
Tuple<int> m_a;

public Tuple<int> A {
get {
if (m_a == null) {
m_a = Tuple.Create(1);  // your costly initialization here
}
return m_a;
}
set { m_a = value }
}
}


How does this scheme go along with ILNumerics’ ILArray? Pretty well:

class Class1 : ILMath, IDisposable {

public ILRetArray<double> A {
get {
if (isempty(m_a)) {
m_a.a = rand(1000, 2000); // your costly initialization here
}
return m_a; // this will only return a lazy copy to the caller!
}
set {
m_a.a = value;
}
}

public void Dispose() {
// ... common dispose implementation
}
}


Instead of checking for null in the get accessor, we simply check for an empty array. Alternatively you may initialize the attribute with some marking value in the constructor. NaN, MinValue, 0 might be good candidates.

## Why the ‘var’ keyword is not allowed in ILNumerics

One of the rules related to the new ILNumerics memory management, which potentially causes issues, is not to use the var keyword of C#. In Visual Basic, similar functionality is available by ommiting the explicit type declarations for array types.

ILArray<double> A = rand(5,4,3); // explicit array type declaration required
var B = rand(5,4,3); // NOT ALLOWED!

Lets take a look at the reasons, why this – otherwise convenient – language feature is not allowed in conjunction with array declarations. In order to make this clear, a little survey into the internals of the ILNumerics memory management is needed.

In ILNumerics, local arrays are of one of the types ILArray<T>, ILLogicalArray, ILCell. Those array types are one building block of the memory managemt in ILNumerics. By using one of those array types in a function, one can be sure, to keep the array alive and available as long as the function is not left. On the other hand – as soon as the function was left, the array will be recycled immediately.

Other array types exist in ILNumerics. They serve different purposes regarding their lifetime and mutability. Input arrays like ILInArray<T> f.e., make sure, arrays given as function parameters are unable to get altered.

Another important type is the return type of any function. Every function, property or operator in ILNumerics returns arrays of either ILRetArray<T>, ILRetLogical or ILRetCell. Return arrays are volatile or temporary arrays. Their use is restricted to exactly one time. After the first use, return arrays are disposed immediately. For expressions like the following, this behavior drastically increases memory efficiency:

abs(pow(cos(A*pi/2+t),2)

Assuming A to be a (rather large) array, 7 temporary memory storages of the size of A would be necessary in order to evaluate the whole expression. But if we take the above assumption regarding the lifetime of return arrays into account, that number is reduced to at most 2 temporary arrays. The reason: A * pi needs one storage for the result: Result1. It is than used to compute [Result1] / 2. Here, another storage is needed for the new result: Result2. At the end of the division operation, [Result1] has already been used for the first time. Since it is a Return Type, it is released and its storage recycled. For the next calculation [Result2] + t, the storage from [Result1] is already found in the memory pool of ILNumerics. Therefore, no new storage is needed and both temporary storages are alternatingly used for the subsequent evaluations.

Lets assume, the expression above does only make sense, if we can retrieve the result and use it in subsequent expressions inside our function. The most common case would be to assign the result to a local variable. Now, we get close to the interesting part: If we would allow the var keyword to be used, C# would generate a local variable B of type ILRetArray<double>:

// DO NOT DO THIS!!
var B = abs(pow(cos(A*pi/2+t),2);    // now B is of type ILRetArray<double> !

Console.Out.Write(B.Length);
Console.Out.Write(B.ToString());    //<-- fails! 

Besides the fact, that this would conflict with the function rules of ILNumerics (local array types must be of ILArray<T> or similar), B could only be used for exactly one time! In the example, B.Length does execute normaly. After that statement, B gets disposed. Therefore, the statement B.ToString() will already fail. This is, why var is not permitted.

By explicitely declaring the local array type, the compiler will use implicit type conversions in order to convert a return array to a local array, which is than available for the rest of the function block:

// this code is correct
ILArray<double> B = abs(pow(cos(A*pi/2+t),2);    // now B is of type ILArray<double> !

Console.Out.Write(B.Length);
Console.Out.Write(B.ToString());    // works as expected

See: General Rules for ILNumerics, Function Rules