![]() |
Boost : |
From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-24 10:17:13
"Matthias Troyer" <troyer_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:E76A322A-1D3B-4B5C-88A0-2B52FD2387EE_at_itp.phys.ethz.ch...
<...>
> Why not just use a ublas vector or MTL vector with a quan quantity?
> As i mentioned before I see no reason for reinventing the wheel. I
> still have not seen your reason for having your own vector classes.
My use cases for vectors are limited to vectors representing 2 dimensional and 3
dimensional space. I find it convenient to represent a vector in 3 dimensions as
a container with 3 elements representing the direction and magnitude projected
onto the x, y, z axes. I will certainly look into UBLAS, but my initial
impression is that it is quite heavyweight for this task. Though I havent looked
at MTL, I would guess that it is even more complex than UBLAS. I will look at
MTL2, but so far I have been unable to locate any information on MTL4.
For matrices my tests have been limited to homogeneous transformation matrices.
In this case the matrix elements for a *simple/obvious* implementation of a
matrix for a physical quantity are comprised of various types, comprising of the
quantity type, the reciprocal of the quantity and numeric types. It may be
possible to somehow 'tag' a numeric matrix as a quantity matrix, but I havent
invetigated that.
I havent looked into other use cases for linear algebra in association with Quan
however. It may be that in the general case ( for large matrices) that it is
impractical ( IOW the costs outweigh any possible benefits) to use non-numeric
types as the elements, but that remains to be investigated.
regards
Andy Little
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