How is a static-sized matrix class not a subset of a static size linear algebra library?
They are -- in fact, the library provides mat and vec classes that trivially wrap C-arrays (but do so in a not particularly thorough way). I actually missed those in my 1st glance over of the docs. Obviously there would be overlap if the proposed matrix data structure was wrapping static arrays. If the underlying matrix data was dynamically allocated, you now have a very different (i.e., moveable) matrix data structure.
Actually I'm forced to retract my proposal. The whole idea was to wrap static sized data in matrix and vector adapters, to allow efficient usage in computer graphics applications (e.g. games) for allowing ease of optimization and things like SIMD.
That's too bad. I was hoping you would be able to adapt the proposal to implement a dynamically allocated matrix. I should hope you can still take advantage of SIMD optimizations with dynamically allocated memory. Plus, move-friendly data structures are (or can be) a Good Thing. I stand by my statement that there's value in that effort. It may be unlikely to see review for another year or so, but it shouldn't invalidate the work. Andrew Sutton andrew.n.sutton@gmail.com