Hi Ozgur,
You are right, the operators are misleading. I will change them to
":<=:" and ":>=:". And perhaps the symbol ":&:" for the interval bound
should also be improved...
Thanks for your suggestion!
Alberto
Ozgur Akgun wrote:
Hi everyone and Alberto,
Numeric.LinearProgramming[1] provides a very nice interface for solving
LP optimisation problems, and the well-known simplex algorithm itself. I
must say I quite liked the interface it provides, simple yet sufficient.
But, to my understanding, there is a confusion in the constructor name
(symbols actually) for constraints. In LP, one needs to write
constraints in the form of ==, <=, or >= only. You /cannot /write a
constraint using strict inequalities. The algorithm has nothing wrong,
but I guess it would be better to have constructor symbols right. See [2]
If this is a design choice, I think it should explicitly be stated.
Regards,
[1] http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hmatrix-glpk
[2]
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/hmatrix-glpk/0.1.0/doc/html/Numeric-LinearProgramming.html#t%3ABound
--
Ozgur Akgun
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
