Why I think lapack matrices should not be converted to list-of-lists.
Subject: Why I think lapack matrices should not be converted to list-of-lists.
From: Stavros Macrakis
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:13:53 -0500
On 1/3/07, Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> wrote:
> A distinct dense general purpose matrix type (i.e. comparable to the
> existing matrix type) would be a disaster.
I agree that a distinct *user-visible* matrix type would be a disaster
-- whether general-purpose or special-purpose (sparse, etc.).
There are many abstract types (lists, matrices, graphs, sets,
multiple-precision numbers, ...) where it would be desirable to have
multiple underlying implementations. Without going down the rathole
of trying to make all of Maxima beautifully object-oriented, perhaps
we could at least figure out some standard framework for all these
cases, rather than reinvent the wheel each time. This might or might
not use existing CL mechanisms for objects.
-s