Subject: Re: [ublas] Status of development /Benchmarks
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-09 07:22:41
On 2013-12-09 11:18, sguazt wrote:
> +1 for a library with loosely-coupled feature, even if this means a
> completely rewriting of uBLAS
> For the integration of computational kernels, why don't we use the
> boost-numeric_bindings lib?
> Also, I'd like to have more MATLAB-like functionalities (I've
> implemented some of them in boost-ublasx, but they relies on
> boost-numeric_bindings and LAPACK functions)
If there is enough interest to integrate (parts of) the numeric bindings
library, I'm willing to help.