On 11/10/06, Jason Hise <0xchaos@gmail.com> 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
exact layout could be a parameter, as for boost::multi_array, except
On 11/10/06, François Duranleau <duranlef@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: the 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 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
above certain rings sometimes it is necessary to perform elementary column operations rather then row operations, something that i run into when i attempted to build my own matrix implementation of fixed dimensions (sadly before i was aware of boost) -- -- lee Lee Elenbaas lee.elenbaas@gmail.com