[Numpy-discussion] Re: [Matrix-SIG] An Experiment in code-cleanup.

[Konrad H. <hi...@cn...>]

> (1) The extent of the support for LAPACK. Do we want to stick with LAPACK
> Lite?

There has been a full LAPACK interface for a long while, of which
LAPACK Lite is just the subset that is needed for supporting the
high-level routines in the module LinearAlgebra. I seem to have lost
the URL to the full version, but it's on my disk, so I can put it
onto my FTP server if there is a need.

> (2) The storage format. If we've still got row-ordered matrices under the
> hood, and we want to use native LAPACK libraries that were compiled using
> column-major format, then we'll have to be careful to set all of the flags
> correctly. This isn't going to be a big deal, _unless_ NumPy will support
> more of LAPACK when a native library is available. Then, of course, there

The low-level interface routines don't take care of this. It's the
high-level Python code (module LinearAlgebra) that sets the transposition
argument correctly. That looks like a good compromise to me.

> (3) Through the judicious use of header files with compiler-dependent flags,
> we could accommodate the various naming conventions used when the FORTRAN
> libraries were compiled (e.g., sgetrf_ or SGETRF).

That's already done!

Konrad.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Hinsen                            | E-Mail: hi...@cn...
Centre de Biophysique Moleculaire (CNRS) | Tel.: +33-2.38.25.55.69
Rue Charles Sadron                       | Fax:  +33-2.38.63.15.17
45071 Orleans Cedex 2                    | Deutsch/Esperanto/English/
France                                   | Nederlands/Francais
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------