Library hierarchy, contd.

[Jan Skibinski]

Dylan mentions "matrix classes" and then concludes:

> Maybe "Computational" would be a better name than "Numeric"?

	I've been trying to demonstrate that there more to 
	"matrix" than just data structure or just simple linear 
	equation solver. It is easy to come up with the latter, 
	or with a set of primitive product operations. But people 
	seem to be ignoring the fact that there is much more to linear
	algebra than those trivialities. Eigenproblems for
	example... Dense cases, sparse cases and all that Pandorra
	box of non-trivial engineering tools. 

	These things are still alive, thank you very much, and 
	the papers are still written about them every day. Neither
	the problems nor the papers are trivial.
 
	Yet they are being ignored in your hierarchy.
	Please, mark at least some spot for them. And do not tie them 
	to "matrix" because "matrix" is just one specific representation
	of operator algebra -- as I am showing in some modules
	of mine, for example.
	I do not care what name you choose. Computational?
	Linear algebra? But please do not ignore them altogether.
	
	Jan