From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "E. Robert Tisdale" To: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: C++ wrapper Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 12:38:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A2173E1.F373835D@netwood.net> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00631.html Ivo Kwee wrote: > GSL is a great library > but math-intensive code in C++ is rather unreadable > using the standard C-namings. > > I am thinking to start coding up a simple (?) C++ wrapper > providing operator overloading etc. > Why has no one started this yet? The GSL library developers have not yet finalized the API. If you implement a C++ wrapper on top of the GSL API, you should expect to revise you wrappers to accommodate GSL revisions at least until version 1.0 is released. > Anyway, I would be OK to code something up > but I need some ready established interface specification. > > Earlier, SVMT has been mentioned. > Is this the "best" one to go for? Yes. Mostly because it is the ONLY proposal for a standard API besides the one proposed by the BLAS Technical Forum http://netlib.uow.edu.au/utk/papers/blast-forum.old/blast-forum.html > Anyone knows "better" or more "accepted" standards? > I was thinking myself > if MatLab-like conventions would be better > but they are not really OO style. Suggestions? There are serious problems with the existing Matlab API. Matlab supports just one type: a double precision matrix. This simplifies the interface and is convenient for developing short application programs but it creates problems when you try to implement larger more complicated application programs. The MathWorks may eventually extent the Matlab language to provide support single and extended precision floating-point as well as fixed-point (integral) types and vector and third order and higher order tensor objects as well as matrix objects so that numerical programmers can write fast, efficient reliable applications in Matlab.