Re: [Matlisp-users] Re: Matrix column access

[Nicolas N. <Nic...@iw...>]

Raymond Toy <ray...@er...> writes:

>>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Neuss <Nic...@iw...> writes:
>
>     Nicolas> Yes, I did consider a unification.  I have tried to keep classes and
>     Nicolas> methods very close, so that this should even be relatively easy.
>
>     Nicolas> On the other hand, the libraries have different purposes.  The FL.MATLISP
>     Nicolas> tries to provide only basic operations avoiding all hassle with external
>     Nicolas> libraries, while Matlisp strives to achieve all the functionality (and
>     Nicolas> performance) of LAPACK.

Hello Ray,

> I would be happy to incorporate any or all of these things into
> matlisp, if you are willing to donate them and if they seem
> appropriate.

Yes, I would be willing to donate it.  The question is, if the benefit is
in a suitable relation to the work to do.  In my eyes, a reasonable work
program for improving Matlisp would be the following:

1. One should use the FL.MATLISP matrix structures (automatically
   generated) for Matlisp.  Printing and read-macro [] should be taken from
   Matlisp.

2. One should automate Matlisp's BLAS interface.  Something like (get-blas
   'daxpy) should make the Fortran daxpy routine available.

3. Also Matlisp's methods for BLAS and LAPACK generic functions which
   interface the Fortran routines should be automatically generated
   whenever possible, maybe following the route I took in Femlisp.  It
   would be nice if one could also extract documentation.
   Anyway, this is the hard part.  I am not sure if it is doable without
   a lot of work.

4. Extensions like matrix slices, etc, allowing easy translation of Matlab
   code should be provided.

This program is nontrivial, and at the moment I cannot afford to work on
it, since I am searching for a job.

> Since I don't use matlisp at all and since Tunc doesn't seem to be
> using matlisp anymore either, what happens in matlisp really, really
> depends on the users now.  I'm willing to add functionality, but the
> users need to describe what they want.
>
> Ray

It looks as if there are only very few people actually using Matlisp.
Considering this, there may be other places where spending CL programmer
time is more fruitful at the moment.

Yours, Nicolas.