|
|
Ublas : |
Subject: Re: [ublas] Deciding on tensor parameters
From: stefan (stefan.seefeld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-13 20:45:45
On 2018-09-13 03:44 PM, Cem Bassoy via ublas wrote:
>
>
> Am Do., 13. Sep. 2018 um 20:35Â Uhr schrieb Stefan Seefeld via ublas
> <ublas_at_[hidden] <mailto:ublas_at_[hidden]>>:
>
>
> Of course, if we need to port code over, it's a sign that the old
> and new types aren't API-compatible, so this becomes a bigger
> question (as it also affects users). Again, my assumption was that
> we could come up with a new API that was backward-compatible.
>
>
> Hmmm, backward compatibility could be a bit more difficult in this
> case. There are so many iterators inside those classes. We do not need
> them. At least only, not on this level I think. So if we agree on
> tensor class template with a static rank using alias templates for
> matrix and vector, means that we would provide a new api with the same
> functionality but better usability?
Yeah.
>
>>
>> Alternatively, if you keep the rank a runtime parameter, you
>> are basically proposing an entirely new API, which means that
>> Boost.uBLAS users will have to decide whether to use the old
>> or the new API, which I'm afraid will result in a
>> fragmentation of the community. Likewise, many existing
>> operations only support existing vector and matrix types, so
>> maintainers will have more work to do to support both APIs.
>>
>> That, to me as library maintainer, is a very high cost, so
>> I'm reluctant to such a change, even if the proposed API with
>> runtime ranks is otherwise sound.
>>
>>
>> Yes agree with you on that point.
>
> Glad to hear that ! :-)
>
>
> So I will wait for more opinions before continuing to adjust the
> tensor class template.
OK. Not sure how many people pay attention to this discussion, though.
If you don't hear anything within a few days (a week at most, I'd say),
I'd just move forward.
Stefan
--
...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...
