[phobos] FFT

[Walter Bright]

Sounds ok.

David Simcha wrote:
> I guess my response to this is that, IMHO, the ridiculously simple API 
> I have now is an absolute must-have at least as a "simple things 
> simple" subset of a richer API anyhow, so I don't see this as a 
> problem.  For example, if we were to get fancier and start having plan 
> objects, support N-D transforms, etc., I would still insist that you 
> could get reasonable results in a single line by simply doing 
> fft(myRange); without explicitly creating a plan, specifying a 
> dimensionality, or anything else a more complex API might allow.
>
> Furthermore, I'm thinking about how N-D FFTs would be supported, and I 
> figure the best way would probably be to just introspect the object at 
> compile time anyhow.  Right now, anything but a range of numeric types 
> or a range of Complex doesn't compile.  This would be expanded to 
> allow matrices and do what the user means, or allow ranges of ranges 
> and do what the user means, or allow ranges of ranges of ranges of 
> ranges (4-D transform) or whatever.
>
> On 8/2/2010 10:20 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>