Date: 2001-08-20 08:58:02
--- In boost_at_y..., Hayati Ayguen <Ayguen_at_b...> wrote:
> helmut.zeisel_at_a... schrieb:
> > 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.
> especially sparse matrices need access methods/iterators to the
> of a matrix.
> declaring a too simple interface supporting only
> rectangular, dense matrices is wrong.
I don't think so.
> such a standard interface
> lead many people to write higher level code (matrix solver ...) for
> an interface. but you'll have to rewrite / throw away such code if
> issues require a new more sophisticated interface solving element
> in a more uniform manner.
Usually you will take a different algorithm/matrix solver
for, say, sparse or band matrices.
So for special matrices, one has to write special code anyway.
In addition, I personally need some OO wrappers for
existing librarires (like IMSL)
more urgently than some new OO-from-scratch libraries
> all current issues have to be taken into account for specifying such
Again this would mean that we will never have a standard interface.
> i agree that we don't have to implement anything like operators,
> expression templates, transpose, ... but we need proper interfaces
> such functions. take transpose() for example:
> a) should it be a global function where
> b) a static member function
> c) a member function modifying itself
From my point of view, these interfaces
are almost equivalent.
Specifying these interfaces is exactly one
important step in the right direction.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk