On 11/10/06, François Duranleau <duranlef@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote:
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006, Jason Hise wrote:
[snip]
This issue arises directly because of the fact that a matrix conceptually is a compound type, whose components should be accessible to client code. But a matrix is not just a compound type composed of elements. A matrix is composed of rows of elements.
I agree on your stand about matrix vs vector types as being distinct, but I don't agree that a matrix is just composed of rows of elements. It could also be columns of elements. Which is it? A matrix should be left as a two dimensional array (conceptually), either row-major or column-major or the exact layout could be a parameter, as for boost::multi_array, except this time maybe as a template parameter.
Maybe. I have to wonder though if this flexibility adds functionality, or just room for confusion. I've heard of doing elementary row opeerations, but I have not heard of doing elementary column operations. I would think that a standardized means of storage and accesss would make code clearer, but I will concede this point if you can show me use cases where this flexibility comes in handy for client code. -Jason