Andy Little said: (by the date of Mon, 19 Jun 2006 21:42:34 +0100)
The current situation with no CVS home for PQS is inadequate, however based on the feedback in the review I am working on various changes. As soon as possible I will try to put the library on a public database,
I'm looking forward to it.
Yes and the 3D vector space stuff is a bit over my head, but I guess you guys know what you are talking about! Seriously I need to sort out the Concept documentation, so hopefully PQS can be compatible with 3rd party libraries or vice versa. or at least it can be used as one model for testing etc.
After all the new comments on this mailing list about lienar algebra, I think that maybe it's better that you completely remove all your classes related to linear algebra from PQS. David Abrahams has written that with his linear algebra library it will be possible to use units inside his vectors without any problems. So that is better for you - you can focus only on units, and just make sure that they are "perfect" - so then you can be sure that they will work with other libraries (including Dave's linear algebra). Previously I was unaware of Dave's work on linear algebra library, so I was ecouraging work on it - because Boost.Ublas is simply not suitable for that (too much focus on speed resulted in loss of genericity). (anybody correct me if I'm wrong ;)
The only problem with a Wiki is that it requires a lot of attention AFAICS, though I havent run one. An alternative might be to put "quantities and quantity spaces" related papers in the Boost Vault. That would be less work anyway! OTOH if you want to set up a Wiki I'll not stop you!
heh, If you don't want to work using wiki, then perhaps it won't work even if I start a wiki. Because you are the chief here, I'm just trying to help as I can.
I want to reiterate that "Geometry" is a too general name. A better name is linear algebra - as it is exactly vectors and matrices. I'm not sure if quaternions fit this name, though. So maybe there is a better name.
"types and algorithms for quantity related spaces" ?
now, with Dave's library, this argument is now obsolete ;) -- Janek Kozicki |