Boost logo

Boost :

From: Christopher Kormanyos (e_float_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-03-30 19:00:11

> I've written and uploaded a first draft> proposal to GSOC-2021 for the Boost.Math.FFT> library.

Hello Eduardo,
Thank you for pursuing this project and preparingyour powerful proposal. The proposal contentits technical description, motivation and your personaldetails are very nicely and coherently presented.
These make your proposal already strong.
As has been mentioned, a reduced scope ofthe project might be more realistic. And itseems like there is, in fact, strong interestin the interface.
Stefan mentions
> focus on an API that can be implemented as a
> wrapper around FFTW
There is a lot of wisdom in this advice.In fact, I encourage you also to look closely at ourwork with Boost.Multiprecision, one of my ownprojects co-authored John. There you will findthat we provide both our own Boost-licensedmultiple-precision types as well as wrappedversoins of GMP and MPFR. So in some sense,we have been living this advice for the past 10years and it has been successful.
I will comment again on your proposal in moredepth. Feel free to refine it any way you like.You might have to place it into the GSoC onlineformat, as I am not sure if a manually-writtenLaTeX proposal can be used in a standalone form.But I'd have to check on that.
Again, as mentioned and still the case,*I strongly encourage you to continue* with theapplication process.
Kind regards, Chris

    On Tuesday, March 30, 2021, 12:59:05 PM GMT+2, Eduardo Quintana via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
 I've written and uploaded a first draft proposal to GSOC-2021 for the
Boost.Math.FFT library.
I realize now that maybe I should have given more details about the proposal itself,
like user's interface and implementation ideas.
That can be fixed in version 2.0.

Best regards,

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at