From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-12 22:22:15
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> >It's not crazy to imagine *inner* and *outer*. Of course we might need to
> >use 2 separate namespaces for the different defaults of plain operator*
> This is coming completely out of the blue, and I don't yet know how to
> implement it. But terms like *inner* and *outer* can be limiting.
> Tensor notation can be very liberating. It would be cool if we could do
> something like:
> TensorIndex i, j, k, l;
> A[i][j][l] = B[i][k] * C[k][j] * D[k][l] * E[k];
> Probably just a pipe dream...
Why do you think so? It seems plausible to me.
BTW, most numerics packages seem to use this notation instead:
A(i,j,l) = B(i,k) * C(k,j) * D(k,l) * E(k)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk