From: Eric Niebler (eric_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-08-13 20:50:35
Zach Laine wrote:
> On 8/12/07, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> The docs have a ways to go to make this clear, I agree. But now that its
>> clear and your suggestion is withdrawn, is your objection to the time
>> series library also withdrawn?
> I guess my vote is now a provisional yes.
> I like the library overall,
> but there are too many details that appear not to be solidified for me
> to vote yes without seeing them addressed:
> The issues Steven has raised wrt the use of commit(). If there really
> are no efficiency gains from the commit() technique, it is unidiomatic
> enough that I think it should go away.
Have you followed recent messages in that thread? I was able to explain
the rationale for the inserters in a way that made sense to Steven. This
is the key message:
> The documentation is pretty far enough from where I think it should
> be. I used xpressive for the first time over the weekend, so I now
> know you know how to write great docs. :)
> The rolling-window algorithm should be added.
Consider it done.
> I'm still hazy on whether adding data to the high end and dropping
> data off the low end is a reasonable and efficient usage of a series,
> or, if not, whether there are methods users can employ to efficiently
> process series that are too large to keep in memory all at once. If
> this is easy to do with the library, I think it's important enough as
> a use case that it deserves its own example.
I think there should be an example of a "single-pass" time series. (This
would be like an istream_iterator, but it could be modeled by a time
series that memory maps segments from a huge file, for instance.) Then,
I can show how such a series can be used with the rolling average
algorithm (which internally uses a circular buffer).
> coarse_grain() and fine_grain() need to be customizable.
> I would still like to see a int/floating point mapping from sample
> space to index space for dense_series<> that you alluded to in a
> previous email.
Are you referring to an interpolating facade? Yes, that is a must have.
> So, with the understanding that these issues will be addressed
> post-review, I vote yes. I leave it up to the review manager to
> determine whether this volume of provisions means that my vote should
> count as "yes, but please address this", or "no, it needs another
These are all on the ToDo list, or are already done. Thanks for all your
-- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com The Astoria Seminar ==> http://www.astoriaseminar.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk