Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: joel (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-14 14:52:28
> but by the phrase 'arbitrary size' i mean varying at runtime
It could. Like you know, loading data from a fiel which size is unkown
and can vcary.
All those scenarii are valid :
* fully dynamic size, dynamic allocation
* fully static size, dynamic allocation
* fully static size, static allocation
> for 3d rotation one should consider quaterninons - not a matrix
We're speaking of users land here. They have the right to choose w/e
structure they want.
Some API requires you to work with matrix to buidl rotations and except
some kind of float** later.
> and explain please what you mean by unrollin? loop unrolling?
> so far i suggest separate classes for vector and matrix and a general
> abstraction for order >2
> vector (column) and matrix would have common public interface while
> less common high order entities would be represented by some tensor<>
> template or whatever with general interface
I won't discuss this. I have my view on this matter that are given by my
own target audience (formar matlab user that want speed).
So well, i can just tell you that the less class to manipualte, the
happier the users.
-- ___________________________________________ Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk