[petsc-dev] Questions about MatMatTransposeMult/MatMatMultTranspose

[Barry Smith]

  I think Jed wants to set these all up to use the dispatch on type table, rather than attaching the methods to the objects.

   
On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Dmitry Karpeev wrote:

> Is there any reason that there isn't dual dispatch support for these routines like there is for MatMatMult?
> If there is no particular reason, I would like to add it, largely for the same reasons I'd like symmetric 
> dual dispatch for MatMatMult: the ability to add new implementations without screwing around with all of the 
> constructors. 
> 
> Similar considerations would apply to the MatMat*Symbolic routines, as well as MatPtAP.
> I still maintain that the right way to handle these is triple dispatch that depends on the type of the output 
> Mat as well, but that would only matter in a handful of corner cases. 
> 
> And a minor question: wouldn't it be better to name these two functions MatTransposeMatMult and MatMatTransposeMult 
> respectively, so that the "Transpose" operation sits next to the matrix it operates on?

    A' * B and A * B' ? Sounds reasonable.

   Barry

> 
> Dmitry.