On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Karl Meerbergen <Karl.Meerbergen@cs.kuleuven.be> wrote:

Well, following the naming convention that we have adopted earlier we
would have to introduce two different functions:
ormqr for real matrices and unmqr for complex matrices where unmqr can
also be used in the real case, but then it is a synonym for ormqr.
In this situation, there is a clear separation between real and complex
and we do not have to provide a templated function (I think).

Best,

Karl

I don't think I explained myself very well. I don't think there needs to be any new functions defined. If I understand correctly, I just call the function 'ormqr' in C++ and the binding will figure out, based upon whether the matrices are double or complex, whether the LAPACK call should be DORMQR or ZUNMQR. Is this correct?

In my code, I have a templated function and so I won't necessarily know if I have a complex matrix or a double matrix and I just call ormqr and let the compiler work everything out. I am unable to know a priori what transpose flag should be passed. I could do a template specialization to determine this, but that complicates things.

The answer, of course, is if this isn't taken care of in the bindings I'll have to take care of it in my code. I just pose the idea to see if it works with the whole package.

Thanks,

Jeremy