From: Dave Steffen (dgsteffen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-19 13:58:10
On Monday 17 December 2007, Andreas Harnack wrote:
Let's step back a little.
Your first question was "Why isn't there a simple matrix library in
the standard". I've given you my answer to that, one or two others
agree. A better place to ask such questions is the comp.std.c++
Usenet newsgroup. I'd encourage you to ask the question there, and
see what happens. I suspect the answer you'll get there is "because
nobody has presented a proposal", but we might get some insight from
the C++ gods who read that group.
You asked a secondary question, "Why is <complex> in the standard",
regarding which I've also tossed my $0.02 US (value decreasing :-)
into the hat. Also a good question for comp.std.c++.
Now: I do recommend that you try rolling your own, since it's very
educational. I'd also recommend that you take a second look at what's
already out there, because something might fit your needs a save you a
lot of time. It still sounds like tvmet would be a good starting
place, and I have found tvmet to be *very* easy to work with.
I also agree with what Martin Bonner said elsethread, that if you want
to get such a library into the standard, you're going about it the
right way. Write the library, submit it to Boost, weather the
inevitable firestorm of (generally constructive) criticism, rinse, and
repeat. If it (and you) survive, write a proposal and present it to
the standards committee (the same C++ gods who hang out in
comp.std.c++) and see what happens.
Personally I think such things *belong* in third-party libraries. But
then, Boost is such a library, and I'd very much like to see *several*
matrix / linear algebra / etc libraries in Boost. So, I'd encourage
you to contine.
-- Dave Steffen - Software Engineer 4 Numerica Corporation (www.numerica.us <http://www.numerica.us/> )
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk