Boost logo

Boost :

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

> threading,
i dream about a way like

    #include <the_lib/lib.h>
    #include <the_lib/threading.h> //enabling threading for the_lib

that would be perfect for me

> MPI,

definitely yes

> extensions,
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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at