
Boost : 
From: Martin Weiser (weiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 20021023 05:23:40
On Mittwoch, 23. Oktober 2002 11:34, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> At Wednesday 2002/10/23 01:16, Martin Weiser <weiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >On Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2002 18:14, Victor A. Wagner, Jr. wrote:
> > > Though in the simulations we used
> > > to run, we _needed_ a signature something like:
> > >
> > > double integrate_step<method>(double next_delta_x, double
> > > next_delta_t);
> > >
> > > Where often, delta_t would be a constant over the "run". Other
> > > times, it varied.
> >
> >It seems as if given only dx and dt, the only possibility to implement
> >such a function is the explicit Euler scheme, i.e. rectangular
> >integration  unless you store computed points and perform some
> > multistep method. But I gather this would require an interface
> > change.
>
> I can't see why, method can include the information
Let me be more detailed in order to ensure we're talking about the same
things. Omitting genericity,
double integrate_step(double dx, double dt) {
// compute increment from dx and dt. Only possibility:
return dx*dt;
}
Or, the more sophisticated version:
class integrator {
double x;
double old_x, old_dt;
int step;
public:
integrator(): x(0), step(0) {}
double integrate_step(double dx, double dt) {
if (n==0) {
x = dt*dx;
old_x = 0;
old_dt = dt;
} else {
// perform some second order multistep method
double DX = multistep(old_x,old_dt,x,dt,dx/dt);
old_dt = dt;
old_x = x;
x += DX;
}
++step;
return x;
}
};
Is that what you mean? I'd call that different interfaces, even though
"integrate_step" has the same signature.
Yours,
Martin
 Dr. Martin Weiser Zuse Institute Berlin weiser_at_[hidden] Scientific Computing http://www.zib.de/weiser Numerical Analysis and Modelling
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk