Re: FFT

From: Hubert HOLIN (Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-31 18:37:57

Paris (U.E.), le 01/11/2001

        Bonsoir

                I guess the need is here, at least it was there a few month 
ago :-)  .

                Last time this was discussed here, I uploaded a (very) old 
implementation of a basic version (borrowing some ideas if not the code 
from NR) to the vault, where it still gathers dust. I will readress 
that, as the need for it in my current work will finaly resurface in 
the reasonably near future, but for the time being, it is in stasis 
(too many things to do, too litle time... and a mostly irrelevant day 
job!). Perhaps it may still be of use, if you are willing to take up 
the torch (and save me work ;-)  ). At the very least, I can provide 
some interesting (math) literature I was intending to use, beyond NR.

        Good luck!

                Hubert Holin
                Hubert.Holin_at_[hidden]

I am not a mad scientist, I am a mad mathematician!

--- In boost_at_y..., johnds_at_t... wrote:
> Would there be any interest in a fast fourier transformation class? 
> I've written one that has the following signature:
> 
> template<class DOUBLE,
> class COMPLEX = std::complex<DOUBLE>,
> class VECTOR = std::vector<COMPLEX> >
> class fft
> {
> static inline void transform(VECTOR&, bool);
> };
> 
> The bool parameter on the transform specifies whether we're taking 
> the inverse or not, and defaults to false.
> 
> The reason for the class (as distinct from a templated function) is 
> to enable default template arguments - 
> there's no actual state.
> 
> If there's interest, I'll tidy things up (appropriate copyright etc) 
> and upload it for initial review.
> 
> John