Library hierarchy, contd.

[Simon Marlow]

> Dylan mentions "matrix classes" and then concludes:
>=20
> > Maybe "Computational" would be a better name than "Numeric"?
>=20
> 	I've been trying to demonstrate that there more to=20
> 	"matrix" than just data structure or just simple linear=20
> 	equation solver. It is easy to come up with the latter,=20
> 	or with a set of primitive product operations. But people=20
> 	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.=20
>=20
> 	These things are still alive, thank you very much, and=20
> 	the papers are still written about them every day. Neither
> 	the problems nor the papers are trivial.
> =20
> 	Yet they are being ignored in your hierarchy.
> 	Please, mark at least some spot for them. And do not tie them=20
> 	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.

We're not ignoring these issues, sorry if you got that impression.  I'd
certainly like to see a suggestion (better still, a proposal) for
organising these libraries from people such as yourself and Dylan.

Cheers,
	Simon