Re: [CHANGESET]: First attempt at a single precision type.

[John W. Eaton]

On 29-Apr-2008, David Bateman wrote:

| Well easy is relative it was still a couple of days of solid work.

OK, I didn't mean to trivialize the effort...

| Agreed that there is the issue of maintenance to address, but if there
| has to be specializations for the LAPACK/BLAS codes that won't go away.
| Even functors will just increase the amount of code to maintain in my
| opinion

Yes, and it tends to be fairly complex, so I agree we need to consider
whether it is worth it.

| in that case, and the calling conventions of some complex LAPACK
| functions are not the same as their real counterparts and so the methods
| with functors in those cases could even be included in the
| MArray2/MArrayN classes.

Yes, those would cause trouble.  I was thinking about float/double.
Are those at least the same?

| There is also still the issue of the effect
| such changes would have on the maintainability of user types in
| octave-forge.

I guess I was hoping to keep the interfaces of the
Matrix/NDArray/etc. classes the same as they are now.  Would it matter
if we added functions to the MArray classes?

jwe