From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-06-04 09:51:03
Walter Landry <wlandry_at_[hidden]> writes:
> Have you looked at
> It implements a fair number of different tensor types (e.g. symmetric,
> antisymmetic), the element type is templated, and it has natural ways
> of specifying contractions. It doesn't have separate covariant and
> contravariant tensors, but that wouldn't be that hard to implement.
> It would just be a fair amount of work for quesionable gain. I used
> it for my General Relativity code, and I never missed the distinction
> between covariant and contravariant indices.
> I bill it as a high performance tensor library, though now I think it
> might actually be better to use ordinary loops instead of the
> compile-time loops.
Really? Please say more.
I clearly remember your talk on that work; weren't you saying that
ordinary loops were so hard to write correctly that they compromised
the chances of success in your projects?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk