Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] fixed size matrix class?
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-30 07:13:59
> There has been a lot of discussion about projects that sound way too
> ambitious for the time available for a GSoC.
Agree, it shold be concised.
> It would be useful to have even a 2D library in a reviewable state.
> If there is any time left over, other 3, 4 and other fixed N can be explored
> or tackled?
What we, as geometry developers, at least need:
- a fixed size matrix where N is a template parameter
- should be able to work with large number types (optional, via
interface or other, see other discussion on mailing list about GMP)
- matrix determinant
- matrix multiplication
- matrix inversion
Most is for transformations. We're now using ublas but indeed a fixed
size matrix would me more convenient and probably more efficient. For 2D
geometry a matrix size 3 is necessary.
> But maybe somebody can argue that we
> > shouldn't have a fixed-size matrix class?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk