From: Hayati Ayguen (Ayguen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-21 10:38:08
David Abrahams wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dietmar Kuehl" <dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]>
>
> > The same confusion between solvers, algorithms, and their
> > implementation will probably arise with matrix libraries, too, and
> > it already does with graphs as far as I have seen. I think we should
> > define such terms precisely such that we can talk more clearly about
> > these issues. Unfortunately, I'm not particularily comfortable with
> > the term "solver" used in the text above but I can't think of a better
> > term, almost certainly due to the fact that I'm not a native English
> > speaker...
>
> In the context of matrix libraries, "solver" usually refers to something
> which solves the equation:
>
> A * x = b
>
> given A and b, e.g. by factoring A into L and U parts.
>
>
> -Dave
There are many algorithms and algorithm interfaces implemented in itl
which builds on mtl-2.x. even the multiply-function of mtl-2.x
implemets/specializes to many algorithms.
the flaw of mtl-2.x was that some algorithm-interfaces weren't
specialized or even implemented: i believe to remember one of this was
building submatrices from sparse matrices. there were some other
problems but i can't remember.
before making unnecessary discussions:
how far ist mtl-3? is it far enough to look at the source for discussing
its interface wether special issues are considered?
i think its important to specify the matrix interface, so that only few
specialization have to be written. one should be able to use a very
simple (maybe slow) algorithm which at least does its job. but i believe
its often possible to write efficient algorithms just using the standard
interface of matrices. but we'll have to specify the a smart interface!
or shall we wait, until someone says mtl-3 to be free for discussion?
please inform us, that we don't review any sources subject to change
drastically.
Hayati