Mateusz Baran

> I noticed that I am now not sure whether `VectorGradientFunction` should be ` I do not have a better idea; storing the power manifold in the objective would ne...

I see, I will try to fix it today or tomorrow.

Hi! Sorry for a delay, I will try to find some time tomorrow or the day after to work on it.

Here is more or less the interface I'd imagine for ALM: ```julia function ( LG::AugmentedLagrangianGrad{

> But then you could never change that representation and you implicitly assume that `get_equality_constaint( [...], :)` (which currently has its own name with an s at the end) _always_...

> Hm, what would still allocate a power manifold in every call? Sure sorting just the power representation is maybe ok, but I would prefer (similar to the manifold not...

I don't have a strong opinion about it. Your solution looks fine though mutating a keyword argument may indeed be a bit surprising.

Maybe it would be nicer to introduce a two-level scheme here instead of wrappers, for example ```julia difference_of_convex_algorithm(M, f, g, ∂h, p=rand(M); kwargs...) = _difference_of_convex_algorithm(M, f, g, ∂h, p; kwargs...)...

If the user doesn't use those wrappers, they don't help with user-facing ambiguities either I think. If there is an ambiguity, the user can already construct the objective themselves and...

> I do not yet see how your dispatch solves the problem with the ambiguity to > `difference_of_convex_algorithm(M, mdco, p; kwargs...)` I didn't know we have an ambiguity when passing...