QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: outrunAnother design choice would be that if we use a vector to store our matrix elements, then we assume that the memory doesn't gets resized or moved. The same restrictions that iterators have. If we *do* want to resize the underlying vector, then we need to rebind our interface (update the pointer to begin of memory. This will be hidden for matrices that have ther own iternal storage, bur not for these bound interfaces, not for iterators in general. Is that smart to do?I think numerical analysis applications can live well without having to resize the matrix.Ok, let's start with this then. You can resize, but then you'll have to call something like a .rebind() member function I guess.And how do you handle the tridiagonal matrix? Do you travers row,col, or the diagonals (with different sizes)? Edit: that's probably a non issue row,col is simple enough.I use 3 arrays to model a tridiagonal matrix. I only need Thomas algo that I linked to in an earlier post.It is just a bandMatrix(K) with K = 1?? uBLAS has all this stuff already.