Date: 2001-08-20 14:14:53
--- In boost_at_y..., Gabriel Dos Reis <Gabriel.Dos-Reis_at_c...> wrote:
> Dietmar Kuehl <dietmar_kuehl_at_y...> writes:
> | Hi,
> | Helmut Zeisel wrote:
> | > However, if we wait for a matrix library that covers
> | > all these issues, we will never have a standard C++ matrix
> | You don't want to define a matrix class anyway! You want to define
> | a generic interface for matrices which is used to access some
> | representation.
> I couldn't agree more.
> One should take in separating algorithms from storage
As I wrote already in a previous answer, it depends on the purpose
of the "matrix interface".
If it is used for writing new algorithms from scratch,
you are right (although I doubt whether efficient
algorithms can be written without knowledge e.g. whether
the matrix is stored row by row or column by column).
My personal primary need
(which might be different from boost's need)
is to access existing libraries.
In that case, the implementation is already fixed.
Hopefully it will be possible to provide
an interface that satisfies both needs.
Anyway, it is better to have a non-perfect interface
as a starting point
than to have none.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk