Daniel Karrasch

Aha, I missed a detail. Should be fixed by #200.

Thanks for reaching out. I see the documentation is overwhelmingly extensive. Do you have some ideas where collaboration/consolidation could be beneficial?

This is very old default behavior of `LinearMaps.jl`, which decided to be on the "safe, lazy" side of things. There are two options: 1. Wrap the call by `convert(Matrix, A*X)`,...

There is no right or wrong here, just two points of view, and one which has been the default perhaps since the creation of the package. What's wrong with ```julia...

I still think the `convert` approach is not too bad. As @Jutho pointed out, you can clearly state there what type of output array you want (avoiding any ambiguity) and...

This is a great idea! I think the summation loop won't be a problem. A mild challenge is multiply-and-add, because we will rely on `LinearCombination` multiplication. But we will need...

🤣 just like me: I also keep telling I won't have time, and then I'm too curious wether it works and start working on it immediately.

What type of linear spaces do you have in mind? And which changes would be required in `LinearMaps.jl`? It could well be that what you're looking for is contained in...

Regarding the original issue, does it make sense to work on it within `LinearMaps.jl`? Dropping the `AbstractVector` requirement in the `_mul_`s yields an ambiguity in our current framework: We interpret...

@JeffFessler That’s correct, which makes me think that `A * (::UniformScaling{bool})` would become type-unstable: depending on whether the lambda is `true` or `false`, we'd return an object of type of...