On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 10:15:08 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Sunday, 14 June 2015 at 09:59:22 UTC, Ilya Yaroshenko wrote:
We need D own BLAS implementation to do it.
Why can't you use "version" for those that want to use a BLAS
library for the implementation?
Those who want replications of LAPACK/LINPACK APIs can use
separate bindings? And those who want to use BLAS directly
would not use phobos anyway, but a direct binding so they can
switch implementation?
I think a good generic higher level linear algebra library for
D should aim to be equally useful for 2D Graphics, 3D/4D GPU
graphics, CAD solid modelling, robotics, 3D raytracing, higher
dimensional fractals, physics sims, image processing, signal
processing, scientific computing (which is pretty wide) and
more.
The Phobos API should be user-level, not library-level like
BLAS. IMO. You really want an API that look like this in Phobos?
http://www.netlib.org/blas/
BLAS/LAPACK/LINPACK all originate in Fortran with a particular
scientific tradition in mind, so I think one should rethink how
D goes about this. Fortran has very primitive abstraction
mechanisms. This stuff is stuck in the 80s…
I am really don't understand what you mean with "generic" keyword.
Do you want one matrix type that includes all cases???
I hope you does not.
If not, yes it should be generic like all other Phobos. But we
will have one module for 3D/4D geometric and 3D/4D matrix/vector
multiplications, another module for general matrix
(std.container.matrix) and another module with generic BLAS
(std.numeric.blas) for general purpose matrixes. After all of
that we can think about scripting like "m0 = m1*v*m2" features.
I think LAPACK would not be implemented in Phobos, but we can use
SciD instead.
