Subject: Re: [ublas] first feedback
From: David Bellot (david.bellot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-29 03:57:34
Well, boost.proto sounds great but it would mean rewriting a large part of
ublas. I'm not sure about the real benefit of that.
Maybe for new developments but for the existing base, it is now very stable
and not worth the work, IMHO.
I will keep an eye however on boost.proto.
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:41, Kim Kuen Tang <kuentang_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> David Bellot schrieb:
> Hi everybody,
>> thanks a lot for your feedback on the future of ublas.
> How about using boost::proto to (re)write the expression template part of
> Since boost::proto is a framework for building dsel it becomes only natural
> to take this into consideration.
> The motivation of this library can be found here:
> There are also some disadvantages. You need to be familiar with this
> library and the resulting learning curve can be high ( you also need to use
> boost::fusion, boost::mpl, boost::preprocessor,...).
> Even that it is worth giving boost::proto a try.
>> It seems we are surrounded by motivated and talented people. I am now
>> taking everything into account before writing the roadmap. We already have
>> contributions and a long list of great ideas. I also found many snippets of
>> code in the mailing list and on web pages all around the web, some of them
>> being quite old but useful, so I will put everything into a document that
>> will be available online.
>> Thanks everybody for your interest in ublas.
>> David Bellot, PhD
>> david.bellot_at_[hidden] <mailto:david.bellot_at_[hidden]>
>> ublas mailing list
>> Sent to: kuentang_at_[hidden]
> ublas mailing list
> Sent to: david.bellot_at_[hidden]
-- David Bellot, PhD david.bellot_at_[hidden] http://david.bellot.free.fr