From: Hayati Ayguen (Ayguen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-21 10:38:08
David Abrahams wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dietmar Kuehl" <dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]>
> > The same confusion between solvers, algorithms, and their
> > implementation will probably arise with matrix libraries, too, and
> > it already does with graphs as far as I have seen. I think we should
> > define such terms precisely such that we can talk more clearly about
> > these issues. Unfortunately, I'm not particularily comfortable with
> > the term "solver" used in the text above but I can't think of a better
> > term, almost certainly due to the fact that I'm not a native English
> > speaker...
> In the context of matrix libraries, "solver" usually refers to something
> which solves the equation:
> A * x = b
> given A and b, e.g. by factoring A into L and U parts.
There are many algorithms and algorithm interfaces implemented in itl
which builds on mtl-2.x. even the multiply-function of mtl-2.x
implemets/specializes to many algorithms.
the flaw of mtl-2.x was that some algorithm-interfaces weren't
specialized or even implemented: i believe to remember one of this was
building submatrices from sparse matrices. there were some other
problems but i can't remember.
before making unnecessary discussions:
how far ist mtl-3? is it far enough to look at the source for discussing
its interface wether special issues are considered?
i think its important to specify the matrix interface, so that only few
specialization have to be written. one should be able to use a very
simple (maybe slow) algorithm which at least does its job. but i believe
its often possible to write efficient algorithms just using the standard
interface of matrices. but we'll have to specify the a smart interface!
or shall we wait, until someone says mtl-3 to be free for discussion?
please inform us, that we don't review any sources subject to change
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk