Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-15 05:38:14
on 15.08.2009 at 13:14
joel wrote :
> Well, the problem is not the design per itself. What usually happens
> with such lib is that you have tons of different user types
> that all want disjoint set of features.
use DRY (don't repeat yourself) idiom
i got it
> Matrix lib always looks easy to do. Except they are not. I can toss you
> tons of questions : will you support openMP,
well it seems trivial to me
i dream about a way like
#include <the_lib/threading.h> //enabling threading for the_lib
that would be perfect for me
there must be a common way for common users
> will you embed loop level optimization based on expression
> introspection ?
sooner or later
> Will you interface looks like matlab, maple or
> mathematica ?
i prefer to model STL interfaces where appropriate
in general: as common as possible
> etc ... Not even counting the things we barely scratched
> like storage mode, allocation mode etc...
of course it is such a missingd feature
it must be there
> That's why I'm avoiding to comment your code cause I'm developing
> something similar but for a somehow different audience than yours and my
> view will prolly be radically different than yours.
but i can get some useful stuff from a radically different design and
utilize it to make the design better
> I can also only reiterate the fact that I have a somehow large code base
> for such a thing that's maybe worth reusing.
sorry but i didn't get the point
> Three heads are better than two I think.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk