|
|
Ublas : |
Subject: Re: [ublas] [boost] The Lonely Song of the MPL Maintainer -- or Boost support for antediluvian compiler and the future supprot of C++11
From: David Bellot (david.bellot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-19 03:23:12
what do you mean by unifying matrices and vectors ? Is it using a unique
representation for both of them, so a vector is a 1-row/1-column matrix ? I
like the idea. Well, in fact, this is what they do in Eigen. It could
simplify the architecture a lot. Then vector<> would only be a syntactic
sugar over matrix<>
I don't see clearly all the advantages however, in unifying dynamic and
fixed matrices/vectors ? (sorry it's due to my ignorance on this topic). Can
you explain in more details please ?
Let me have a look at your code this week-end.
Thanks a lot,
David
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 16:51, Nasos Iliopoulos <nasos_i_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I was thinking along those lines for some time and I found that with the
> new standard we could unify matrices and vectors, dynamic and fixed. Here is
> a working implementation I had started some time ago but as usual don't have
> the time to complete :) (http://sourceforge.net/p/larray/wiki/Home/) .
> I also have a local version of linear algebra expressions template library
> using proto and this generic array but haven't pushed it to source forge
> yet.
>
> Best,
> Nasos
>
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/larray/wiki/Home/
>
>
> On Aug 13, 2011, at 4:31 PM, David Bellot wrote:
>
> I think it's a good idea getting rid of old things from boost and focusing
> on C++11.
> That's gonna be a goal in Boost.ublas too.
>
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 17:18, Joel falcou <joel.falcou_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> This is meant to be a serious thread and not some trollfest about w/e
>> compilers.
>>
>> I am currently fixing bugs and applying feature request in MPL and it just
>> happens I spend more time deciphering the web of compatibility #ifdefs than
>> doing actual code. A rough guestimate tells me that on a 100 lines MPL
>> files, 80 of them are #ifdef for compatibility.
>>
>> It could fine and dandy if those #ifdefs where not, for a majority,
>> targeted at compiler i didnt even knew hwere standard conformant (ICC 5,
>> really) or still in serious use (Borland whatever). Some other are more
>> debatable (like MSVC 6 or such).
>>
>> Considering such compilers are so broken that upgrading boost is out of
>> question for these users and that C++11 and its new set of supporting
>> compilers are around the corner, also taking into account my limited amount
>> of sanity (IRC people can testify on this), can't we start some support
>> clean up in this library ?
>>
>> <radical>
>> Going further, shouldn't we start thinking at boost 2.0 which will
>> definitevely let c++03 die its peaceful death and start, on a voluntary
>> effort, move boost component toward C++11. I know we have a fully working
>> Fusion for 0x only. mpl, proto and other strategic infrastructure libraries
>> should benefit from that. Some are a trivial port like Boost.PP and all the
>> TR1 boost library that will just either disappear or forward the C++11
>> version.
>> </radical>
>>
>> Here is the status of the thingy. Letting Boost 2.0 aside, what should be
>> the status of MPL and its sharazadian list of supported compiler ?
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/**
>> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> ublas_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: athanasios.iliopoulos.ctr.gr_at_[hidden]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> ublas_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: david.bellot_at_[hidden]
>