Le Lundi 22 Janvier 2007 17:13, Schleimer, Ben a écrit : > Jut curious: > 1) How similar is gmm to mtl? > 2) Are there any plans for copy-on-write semantics > and/or expression templates implemented for gmm in the > future? Just so overloading operators becomes > possible?
The major difference between Gmm and MTL is the fact that Gmm is basically built as an interface for existing optimized package. So extern matrix and vector formats are easy to interface and used. For instance std::vector<T> is used for the standard plain vector in Gmm. This makes easy the definition of a new vector or matrix type and easy also the mix between several format (for copy, mult ...). One of the drawback is that is more difficult to implement expression templates (seems impossbile in a general way). One of the reasons is that operator = cannot be defined outside a class. in any way, one of the problem is that expression templates should be written for each class interfaced by Gmm. Compared to MTL we also optimized and controled the validity of many algorithms (especially in complex where a lot of errors where present, see automatic tests). We add also an "tranparent" interface to Blas/Atlas for small plain matrices. Sincerly, Yves. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yves Renard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) tel : (33) 04.72.43.80.11 Pole de Mathematiques, INSA de Lyon fax : (33) 04.72.43.85.29 Institut Camille Jordan - CNRS UMR 5208 20, rue Albert Einstein 69621 Villeurbanne Cedex, FRANCE http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~renard ------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Getfem-users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/getfem-users
