[phobos] FFT

[Walter Bright]

Can we use what the best FFT's provide as a guide to what the API should 
cover? I think it's fine if it's something we can grow into, I just 
don't want to keep doing what we've done too often already - chuck the 
old one and break everyone's code.

David Simcha wrote:
> Well then we would need to define an API for matrices or something to 
> define how multidimensional transforms are going to work.  In dstats, 
> I've just been using ranges of ranges or tuples of ranges because it's 
> available and works reasonably well, but I haven't really thought in 
> detail about whether this is the optimal solution.
>
> Also, an N-D transform is apparently trivially implementable in terms 
> of a 1-D transform, so I don't know whether an API for this would be a 
> must-have.
>
> On 8/2/2010 9:18 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>>
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>>
>>> The most important thing for a Phobos implementation of FFT (or any 
>>> other module) is getting the API right. Having that right means we 
>>> can always swap it out for a better implementation without breaking 
>>> user code.
>>>
>>
>> For FFT this would mean looking at the best FFT implementations out 
>> there to see what their API is. Phobos' should support a full feature 
>> set, even if for now the implementation will throw exceptions for 
>> things it doesn't support yet.
>> _______________________________________________
>> phobos mailing list
>> phobos at puremagic.com
>> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> phobos mailing list
> phobos at puremagic.com
> http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
>
>