Subject: [ublas] Is uBLAS like the rest of Boost? Should it be?
From: Paul C. Leopardi (paul.leopardi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-25 21:18:54
From the thread:
Re: [ublas] Why is there no constructor taking an initial value?
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> It's one of boost's hallmarks, that we try to make as much as possible
> similar to the STL. It's much easier to learn new libraries that way.
This brings up an important point, to my mind.
uBLAS went through 3 phases, to oversimplify:
(1) Initial design and construction
(2) "Boostification" and acceptance into Boost
So uBLAS is what it is because it was what it was in phase (1). Its strength
is its consistency with its own design principles. That does mean, though,
that it is not all things to all people, eg:
o No matrices of matrices; no matrices over non-commutative rings;
o No multiplication operators;
o No simple way to fill on initialization; etc.
So, what was the effect of phase (2)? How much is uBLAS like the rest of
Boost? Should it be more like the rest of Boost? What would need to be done?
Is it too late for a phase (4)? Or would making uBLAS more like the rest of
Boost be too inconsistent with phase (1)?