Re: gsl Development Query

[Gerard Jungman <jungman at lanl dot gov>]

"E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
> 
> The FFT object (what you call a gsl_fft_wavetable_complex) is OK.
> But then you go on to itemize the private members:
> 
>         typedef struct {
>           size_t n;
>           size_t nf;
>           size_t factor[64];
>           gsl_complex *twiddle[64];
>           gsl_complex *trig;
>           double *scratch;
>           } gsl_fft_wavetable_complex;
> 
> Why did you do this?
> It isn't necessary for the application programmer
> to have any of this information.

Look, we can all sit and play C++ compiler. But there's
no point. The implementation language for this project
does not make a distinction, and nobody at this end is
going to make pedantic distinctions. People who use C
libraries have to apply some common sense. That is a
fact (unfortunate perhaps) of the language.

And he did it because it was useful to write it
down somewhere. Don't quibble about where he wrote
it down.


> I think that you've painted yourself into a corner
> and you will be obliged to support this particular
> data representation and the implied algorithm forever.

Nobody is painting any corners, and nobody is
obliged to do anything. Chill out.


--
G. Jungman