Date: 2001-08-20 07:14:17
--- In boost_at_y..., Hayati Ayguen <Ayguen_at_b...> wrote:
> Many aspects have to be considered when implementing efficient
> matrix/vector classes. i'm unsure about development status of all
> matrix class libraries out there, but i haven't seen any library
> concerning all issues.
However, if we wait for a matrix library that covers
all these issues, we will never have a standard C++ matrix interface.
> some of the important issues are:
> i'm sure i forgot some important issues, so its to you to complete
IMHO, what is needed most is a simple
interface for rectangular, dense matrices,
covering C-style layout.
In a first step no operators, no expression templates,
no transpose etc.
This is the minimum to get a standard interface
for an OO usage of many legacy C libraries like IMSL.
Every more sophisticated C++ library
should follow the same basic interface,
but clearly may add additional special purpose methods.
> i'm also unsure of how many of the above issues are concerned in the
> "mtl-3" which is mentioned to get part of boost.
What is the actual state of MTL 3?
If it is far enough, it might be a good idea
to use the interface of MTL 3 as a basic matrix interface.
> A cooperation with OON
> group should be considered.
But anyway, the emphasis of OON is more on implementation,
while IMHO the emphasis of boost should be on interface.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk