[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: moving toward a 3.0 release

From: Dmitri A. Sergatskov
Subject: Re: moving toward a 3.0 release
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:09:17 -0600

On 9/27/06, David Bateman <address@hidden> wrote:
Dmitri A. Sergatskov wrote:
> On 9/27/06, John W. Eaton <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Since it seems that calls to these functions are relatively complex,
>> it would be nice to have another layer around the Fortran at the
>> liboctave level so that if someone wanted to use this functionality in
>> C++ they could do it more easily.  That is secondary to finding
>> out the cause of the crash, but it might help to be able to call this
>> code directly from a C++ program without all of Octave in the way.
> I have a stupid question, why don't we use arpack++ then?

I didn't what to introduce another dependency, also arpack++ is
dependent on superlu, whereas octave itself isn't. So we'd be adding yet
another useless dependency, Finally, all of the arpack++ classes use the
stl matrix/vector classes and so I'd have to extract from the octave
format massage them into the STL format and back again. Using the
fortran code directly allows me to use octave's matrix/vector classes
(with the fortran_vec method) directly.

Thank you.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]