From: jhrwalter (walter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-12-07 02:36:07
--- In boost_at_y..., Toon Knapen <toon.knapen_at_s...> wrote:
> jhrwalter wrote:
>
> >>what's the complexity guarantee of `resize`. I guess it is
intended
> >>to reshape a matrix without having to allocate memory.
> >
> > If possible, yes (the actual implementations are occasionally
> > suboptimal ;-). It's an open question, whether there is need for
a
> > similar operation which conserves matrix data. Complexity
guarantees
> > depend on operator new, but should be quadratic.
> >
> >
> >>For instance if I
> >>need a temporary matrix in a loop, but in every loop the total
size
> >>of the matrix can be different, I can allocate a matrix with some
> >>maximal size and resize it in every loop to something smaller in
every
> >>loop in constant amortised time ?
> >>
> >
> > Currently not, but it should be possible to change this. May be
we
> > need to differentiate size() and capacity()?
>
> Definitly. This would minimise memory allocation !
Agreed.
[snip]
> > Bonus question: what's the best namespace name?
>
> I guess you mean the namespace for the whole ublas package ? boost
or
> boost::numerics I guess.
I recently noticed a thread, which discussed, if namespace names
shouldn't be abbreviated (like std ;-). The only abbreviation for
numerics that I can come up is 'num'. But I don't like it very much.
[snip]
> >>In that case I'm going to deploy it in my own projects ASAP !
Nice !
> >>
> >
> > Sorry, we're not as fast ;-)
> I would be interested in doing it myself (with a little support of
course)
>
> if you think it's feasible.
Sparse matrix integration is clearly delicate, especially w.r.t.
iterators. I'm not sure, if this wouldn't be too early.
Regards
Joerg