From: Eduardo Quintana (eduardo.quintana_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-04-01 05:12:38
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 03:54:57PM -0400, Stefan Seefeld via Boost wrote:
> I agree, that wouldn't sound very appealing. I think the best way to
> look at it is to design a modern C++ FFT API, with a big "I", i.e. an
> emphasis on "interface", and to test that API by binding it to one (or
> two, if time permits) existing libraries.
> Testing such an interface has two sides:
> 1) Is the API accepted by users, i.e. is it convenient to use ?
> 2) Is the API implementable, i.e. can it be seamlessly and efficiently
> bound to existing implementations ? (To test this carefully this
> requires more than one backend, to avoid the API adopting idiosyncrasies
> from the first backend it was developed around.)
Your point of view is very mature.
I am enthusiast to adhere to this idea.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk