Re: [boost] Re: Standardization of Boost libraries

From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-07 09:24:16

On Thursday 07 March 2002 14:40, you wrote:
> >
> > There definitly should be a matrix library as well. But as neither
> > ublas or
> > MTL3 are ready for prime time, I really hope we'll be able to propose
> > a matrix lib the meeting after this one. Such a matrix library is really
> > really necessary for all numerics work.
>
> Agreed.

I'm using ublas now very intensively and I'm very satisfied.
Currently, I'm using ublas in a elastic FE benchmark and it looks I'm on par 
with the fastest fortran codes.
So I really would like it to be proposed in one of the next meetings.

>
> > Once this is in the C++ standard, I see no
> > reason for scientists to stick with Fortran.
>
> Alas, until we can solve some of the low-level issues with
> initialization and aliasing, there will still be efficiency arguments
> for Fortran.
If the next standard also adopts the C99 restrict, I guess we solved the 
aliasing issue. Or am I missing soth.

What's the problem regarding initialisation (not taking into account the 
std::complex as being discussed in the other thread) ?

t