
Boost Users : 
Subject: [Boostusers] Extending boost::function for mathematics?
From: Jesse Perla (jesseperla_at_[hidden])
Date: 20090124 17:03:31
Steven: beautifully simple code on your previous post. I just fear that MPL
is beyond the reach of mortals such as myself because I could never come up
with that solution.
If people are in the mood for this kind of stuff, let me post on a set of
questions coming up in my libraries:
1) QUESTION 1: MANAGING DERIVATIVES FOR FUNCTIONS
* I am doing a lot of work with functions that may have an associated
derivative analytically or numerically determined.
* This is the tip of the iceberg in associating a bunch of information with
a mathematical function that all needs to be bundled.
* I have been creating functors like the following:
template <class ParamType>
struct square{
typedef double result_type; //For adaptors
double operator()(double x, const ParamType& params ) { return x*x;}
double gradient(double x, const ParamType& params ){return 2 * x;}
boost::function<double (double,const ParamType&
params)> gradient(){return boost::bind(&square::gradient, *this, _1, _2)};
//I forget the exact notation for bind with member functions, but the idea
is that it would return a boost::function.
}; //Analytical derivative
But I would also love the ability to use finitedifference or
autodifferentiation algorithms for more complicated examples. Perhaps
something like:
struct square : finite_differences<int Order>{
double operator()(double x, const ParamType& params ) { return x*x;}
}; //Analytical derivative
* Ideally here, finite_differences<int Order> would be able to generate the
derivative using order taylor series approx and the operator() to evaluate
the function. Even here I am not sure the best way to organize it.
2) QUESTION 2: ADAPTATION AND USE LIKE BOOST::FUNCTION
Now, lets say that there was something similar to boost::function but which
had the "derivative" concept to call.gradient(...) to evaluate grad, or
return a functor which is the gradient as another function.. Lets call it
math_function for now. The behavior is things like the following:
using lambda::_1;
using lambda::_2;
math_function<double (double)> mysquare(_1 * _1); //This will generate a
math_function with the finite differences as its derivative.
assert(mysquare(1) == 1);
math_function<double (double)> mysquaregrad = mysquare.gradient(); //Gets
the derivative, which was generated through finite differences. This could
then be used to get the .gradient again for example.
assert(mysquare.gradient(.1) == mysquaregrad(.1));
math_function<double (double, int)> myfunc(_1 + _2);
math_function<double (double)> myboundfunc = bind(my_func, _1, 3);
assert(myboundfunc.gradient(1.0) == 4.0);
//And then to create one with an analytical derivative
math_function<double (double)> mysquare(_1 * _1, 2 * _1);
assert(mysquare.gradient(1.0) == 2.0); //evaluated through the analytical
derivative.
boost::function<double (double)> myboostsquare = mysquare.as_function();
//would be nice for interoperability... or something similar.
//Then we can create a class such as polynomial which subclasses
math_function
polynomial_function<3> mypoly({{2, 3, 5}}); //Creates a third order
polynomial. The operator() uses fancy algorithms for polynomial evaluation.
math_function<double (double)> mypoly2 = mypoly; //Can adapt to a
math_function for use in generic algorithms.
math_function<double (double)> mypolygrad1 = mypoly.gradient();
polynomial_function<2> mypolygrad2 = mypoly.gradient(); //Maybe this is
getting too fancy...
3) QUESTION 3: WHY DO I WANT ALL THIS STUFF?
For the same reason that boost::function is so useful for functional
programming. I am going to have a million permutations on this kind of
pattern, am writing very generic algorithms, and would prefer not to have to
write a superclass for every permutation of parameters. I want to be able
to freely bind to it, easily use lambdas, and eventually want to add a bunch
of other traits such as # of derivatives, range/domain, continuity,
hessians, etc. that can be uniformly managed.
4) QUESTION 4: AM I INSANE?
Is this at all possible or has something similar been done? It seems to me
that it might be, but I am likely not be capable of doing it. Is
piggybacking boost::function in some smart way here the best approach? Even
if we can't subclass directly, can we copy the source code and intelligently
add in a few extra functions, etc.?
Boostusers list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net