Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-04 13:30:39

Nit-pick: please do not mix up n-dim arrays and matrices... they are
fundamentally different abtractions, with a completely different set of
operations and algorithms that apply to them. There implementations often
end up looking exactly alike, but that is really accidental.

As to not implementing binary operators... that may very well be the best
choice. Though without the binary operators, I'd be tempted to leave out
numeric operations altogether.

On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Gary Powell wrote:

> > Yes, I'm very familiar with PETE, however I'd vote against using
> > expression templates (ET) for the boost multi-dim array library. The
> > reason is that there are already good ET-based array libraries: Pooma and
> > Blitz. However, there is a need out there for a more portable, simpler,
> > and faster to compiler array library. I think the boost array library
> > should fill this need.
> >
> Ok, what if we did not implement the binary operator's "+", "-", "*", and
> "/" returning temporaries because of their inefficiency. Instead do just the
> "+=", "-=", "*=", and "/="?
> I would hate to see people write;
> boost::matrix M1,M2,M3,M4;
> M4 = M1 + M2 + M3;
> and listen to people complain about how slow C++ is.
> > P.S. PETE uses partial specialization all over the place, and hence
> > can not be used with the world's most popular wanna-be C++ compiler.
> >
> Dang! It's going to be at least 2 years before this gets fixed. Any chance
> of not supporting this set of users? Or is this really a boost::MSVCMatrix
> class? and you recommend that everyone else use MT, or Pooma?
> -gary-

 Jeremy Siek www:
 Ph.D. Candidate email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Univ. of Notre Dame work phone: (219) 631-3906

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at