From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson) Date: 2003-01-24T10:25:56+09:00 Subject: Re: Scientific library [ was Re: Missing libraries??] In article <20030123233856.GA1870@math.umd.edu>, Daniel Carrera wrote: >On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 03:43:12PM +0900, ahoward wrote: > >> 28. Scientific Library (like python has) > >What do people think of just wrapping the GNU Scientific Library? I'm not too familiar with it... > >So Scientific::zeta() would wrap gsl_sf_zeta_int() or would >Scientific::GSL::zeta() be better? I think that this is getting a little >verbose. > Hmmm... well probably the second even though it's more verbose. Just in case someone wants to wrap a different scientific lib. Swig would be a good tool for wraping this library. >Then we can start adding other stuff that might not be included in the >GSL. Like an interface to PGPLOT. > How about GNUPlot - actually there is something for gnuplot on the RAA. >Note: The GSL is GPL, not LGPL. I am cool with that, but I felt I should >mention it. No problem as far as I'm concerned. Phil -- "Or perhaps the truth is less interesting than the facts?" Amy Weiss (accusing theregister.co.uk of engaging in 'tabloid journalism') Senior VP, Communications Recording Industry Association of America