Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > perl.module-authors > #3378

Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded

Show all headers | View raw

On 2020-08-23 02:40, Lutz Gehlen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I am working on a set of modules dealing with banded matrices (aka
> band matrices or band diagonal matrices). These are a certain kind
> of sparse matrices where all entries are known to be 0 except close
> to the main diagonal. Obviously, this condition can be exploited for
> efficient storage and algorithms.
> 
> I am planning to use the Math::Matrix::Banded namespace. However, I
> require separate namespaces for rectangular (i.e. non-square) and
> symmetric systems because they are stored differently and allow a
> distinct set of algorithms.
> 
> I have considered
> Math::Matrix::Banded
> Math::Matrix::BandedRectangular
> Math::Matrix::BandedSymmetric
> 
> What I don't like about this option is that the package name would
> be Math-Matrix-Banded, but it would use namespaces outside the top
> level namespace.
> 
> An obvious alternative would be
> Math::Matrix::Banded
> Math::Matrix::Banded::Rectangular
> Math::Matrix::Banded::Symmetric
> 
> What I don't like here is that it suggests that the latter two
> classes are subclasses of the first, which is not the case.
> 
> The third option I came up with is
> Math::Matrix::Banded::Square
> Math::Matrix::Banded::Rectangular
> Math::Matrix::Banded::Symmetric
> 
> This is all within the Math::Matrix::Banded namespace and reflects
> the sibling relationship between the three classes. What I can see
> as a disadvantage - apart from long names - is that the package
> would still be called Math-Matrix-Banded, but there is no class
> occupying the top level namespace, which might be confusing for
> users.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on this matter?
> Thank you and best wishes,
> Lutz

First, I am not a mathematician.


Follow the application domain taxonomy names makes the most sense.


If your implementation is OO and maps 1:1 with the taxonomy, that would 
be ideal.  If not, I might have modules per the taxonomy where it makes 
sense, and put everything else into sub-directories organized by 
whatever makes sense for them (such as OO modules, utility functions, 
whatever).


Your third option could work for module names if Square, Rectangular, 
and Symmetric are at the same level of the taxonomy.  If they are the 
only three choices that will ever exist for banded matrices, then one 
distribution named Math::Matrix::Banded makes sense.


But if there are other types of banded matrices, if those terms are 
really at different levels, or if there are other taxonomy issues, 
perhaps you should release multiple distributions -- one per work 
product, named per the taxonomy.  The idea is that you do not want to 
block future modules or distributions.


David

Back to perl.module-authors | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded lrg_ml@gmx.net (Lutz Gehlen) - 2020-08-23 11:40 +0200
  Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded dpchrist@holgerdanske.com (David Christensen) - 2020-08-23 06:37 -0700
    Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded lrg_ml@gmx.net (Lutz Gehlen) - 2020-08-24 15:46 +0200
      Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded dpchrist@holgerdanske.com (David Christensen) - 2020-08-24 17:17 -0700
        Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded lrg_ml@gmx.net (Lutz Gehlen) - 2020-08-25 11:02 +0200
          Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded dpchrist@holgerdanske.com (David Christensen) - 2020-08-25 13:30 -0700
  Re: Namespace Math::Matrix::Banded lrg_ml@gmx.net (Lutz Gehlen) - 2020-08-25 11:03 +0200

csiph-web