Re: [pure-lang-users] case

[Eddie R. <er...@bm...>]

On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 17:51 +0200, Albert Graef wrote:
> Eddie Rucker wrote:
> > Actually the thingy I sent was bad. (m, setter) should have been (m,
> > set) like in the following. Since set is local to matrix and we have
> > lexical scoping, I see no problem.
> 
> Yes, I missed that. But you could still simplify your definition, by 
> just making gsl_matrix_set promote integer arguments to double. I don't 
> see why you need that type argument to the setter function at all.

What about complex? So I still have to have a setter function for double
and complex, so I might as well include integers. Maybe people studying
combinatorics might need integer matrices, no? If I only had doubles,
things would certainly be easier to implement. By the way, I have to go
through the BLAS interface to multiply matrices so I guess I should do
everything through the BLAS interface. I read somewhere that I should
combine GLS with ATLAS because it is a faster BLAS. Oh well, I think I'm
going to stick with double matrices first until I work out the quirks
and then add in the complex and integer matrices.

Now, if I could only find a portable way of determining the size of word
boundaries for different machines and OSs ... I really hate to add a C
wrapper on top of a C interface and then a Pure wrapper on top of the C
wrapper but it's definitely looking to be the best route.

e.r.