From: helmut.zeisel_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-08-20 07:14:17
--- In boost_at_y..., Hayati Ayguen <Ayguen_at_b...> wrote:
>
> Many aspects have to be considered when implementing efficient
> matrix/vector classes. i'm unsure about development status of all
the
> matrix class libraries out there, but i haven't seen any library
> concerning all issues.
Exactly.
However, if we wait for a matrix library that covers
all these issues, we will never have a standard C++ matrix interface.
>
> some of the important issues are:
...
>
> i'm sure i forgot some important issues, so its to you to complete
this
> list!
>
IMHO, what is needed most is a simple
interface for rectangular, dense matrices,
covering C-style layout.
In a first step no operators, no expression templates,
no transpose etc.
This is the minimum to get a standard interface
for an OO usage of many legacy C libraries like IMSL.
Every more sophisticated C++ library
should follow the same basic interface,
but clearly may add additional special purpose methods.
> i'm also unsure of how many of the above issues are concerned in the
> "mtl-3" which is mentioned to get part of boost.
>
What is the actual state of MTL 3?
If it is far enough, it might be a good idea
to use the interface of MTL 3 as a basic matrix interface.
> A cooperation with OON
(http://www.oonumerics.org/oon/)
> group should be considered.
>
I agree.
But anyway, the emphasis of OON is more on implementation,
while IMHO the emphasis of boost should be on interface.
Helmut