Mathemagix

[Bernard Mourrain <address@concealed>]

Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 10, 2007 at 05:17:22PM +0100, Bernard Mourrain wrote:
>   
> > In the first case, an interest is that the code can be reused more easily.
> > For instance, if one want to manipulate polynomials in the bernstein 
> > basis on a interval [a,b]
> > the container will be = [array of coeff. + size + a,b]
> > and the operations on this representation will be linked to the 
> > bernstein basic operations at the interface class level.
> > (In the other approach a specific class has to be rewritten).
> > This gives a way to use general functions on all dense polynomials, 
> > whereas in the other case, helpers have to be developed, case by case.
> >     
>
> I don't agree. In the case of algebramix, it suffices to template
> over the polynomial type. You may then instantiate by polynomials
> of whatever representation you wish.
>
>   
What about generic functions which applies for 
dense_univariate_polynomial or bezier_univariate_polynomial
but not sparse_multivariate_polynomial ?
I suggest to put them in namespaces (see VECTDSE, MATRDSE, MPOLDSE, ... 
in algebrix).
> > What about multivariate polynomials or sparse structures: should the 
> > type of the monomials be attached to the class ?
> >     
>
> Yes (or as a template parameter, or in the variant),
> because it is part of the implementation.
>
>   
> > The path that you propose requires the current class names to be more 
> > explicit:
> >
> > vector -> dense_vector
> > matrix -> dense_matrix
> > structured_matrix
> > sparse_matrix  (with many possible formats)
> >     
>
> Yes.
>   
OK, so for polynomials  should we use:

dense_univariate_polynomial
bezier_univariate_polynomial
...
sparse_multivariate_polynomial
...

Any convention to adopt, in order to prepare the transition?

B.