|
|
Ublas : |
Subject: Re: [ublas] [bindings] Which Bindings should I direct my users to? Boost proper?
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-07-14 02:50:25
Thomas Klimpel wrote:
[snip]
> I think, using the release branch is a good compromise (= I will use the
> release branch from now on to generate the html documentation). It's less
> time consuming than using the latest released version, and provides
> essentially the same benefits. As unbelievable as it sounds, quickbook had
> more than 20 changes on trunk since the 1.43 release. And even so it was
> merged to the release branch on 23. June 2010, the current quickbook
> version on trunk has collected enough changes since then to again produce
> different-looking results. And it's even OK that way, because Doug Gregor
> once wrote "We're calling the development branch the trunk".
>
Alright, let's use the latest released version to generate the docs.
[snip]
> I wouldn't use the name "Vector" for something that supports strides,
> because that would be unexpected (nobody unaware of the convention would
> be able to guess this meaning) and arbitrary (a vector with distributed
> storage would be even more general).
Ok, then I guess I prefer StridedVector (in line with e.g.,
glas/StridedVectorCollection) and Vector (in line with the STL one) the
most. Would you like me to apply the necessary changes to the generator?
>
> So we will probably omit them (sooner or later, as I probably first want
> to do something productive before removing perfectly well working
> functionality).
Ok.
> I fear this statement is more correct than you may be aware of. With the
> release of lapack 3.2.2, the design of the "lapack/explore-html" page has
> been changed, so that all of our lapack source links are broken now. We
> could fix this by changing "lapack/explore-html/sXXXX.f.html" into
> "lapack/single/sXXXX.f", but a more robust fix would be to upload our own
> versions of these files to some web space. However, for the moment I
> prefer to just wait until the netlib page of lapack has settled into a
> longer lasting state, and then do the necessary adjustments to our links.
> And I have to admit that I have no experience at all with web space.
We could just open a sourceforge page, and upload the docs there. Perhaps
the easiest most economic solution.
>
> Thanks. Sorry for taking so long to answer.
>
Same here. Have been away for a couple of weeks, but I'm still very
preoccupied at the moment. I will try to find some time to work on the
bindings.
>
> In the meantime, I addressed the "- fix clapack routines (no workspace)"
> and the "- fix gbtrf/gbtrs, gbsv (banded solve)" issue.
Great. I'll try to post some results on the interleave stuff.
Cheers,
Rutger