On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, David Roundy wrote:
If we support matrix-matrix multiplication, we already automatically support matrix-column-vector and row-vector-matrix multiplication, whether or not we actually intend to, unless you want to forbid the use of 1xn or nx1 matrices. So (provided we *do* want to support matrix-matrix multiplication, and *I* certainly would like that) there is no question whether we'll have octavish/matlabish functionality in terms of row and column vectors--we already have this behavior with a single multiplication representing a single operation.
Of course, I only wanted a separate vector type (which also means a separate matrix-vector multiplication) and I argued against a further discrimination of row and column vectors.
If you want to introduce a more general set of tensor datatypes,
Did someone requested tensor support? At least not me. I used the tensor example to show that MatLab throws them all together with matrices and vectors and I wanted to give an idea how to make it better by separating them.
In short, especially since the folks doing the work (not me) seem to want plain old octave-style matrix operations, it makes sense to actually do that. *Then* someone can implement an ultra-uber-tensor library on top of that, if they like. And I would be interested in a nice tensor library... it's just that matrices need to be the starting point,
Matrices _and_ vectors! Because matrices represent operators on vectors and it is certainly not sensible to support only the operators but not the objects they act on ... Adding a vector type by a library that is build on top of a matrix library seems to me like making the first step after the second one.