Thinking it over there may be a reason to implement a fixed_array class and that is to remove the default (zero for numeric types) initialization of the std::array. This would speed up code like:

(using ublas::fixed_vector here:)

fixed_vector<double,3 > v; // Right now this will initialize to 3 zeros which is redundant.

for ( auto i = 0 ; i != 3; i++)
{
v[i] = i;
}

For small arrays though this there is a safe and much better alternative:

fixed_vector<double,3> v( {0, 1, 2} ) ;

and hence I am not sure if it would be wise to implement a non-initialization fixed_array class.

Another option I was thinking was to implement some sort of "lambda initialization" i.e. a user provided function that is used in the constructor. The problem with this is that it may provide opportunities to break encapsulation and that would be terrible in the construction phase. I am not ruling out such a feature though.

-Nasos

On 01/22/2015 05:59 PM, Joaquim Duran Comas wrote:

I see. I can use std:array.
2015-01-22 15:03 GMT+01:00 Nasos Iliopoulos <nasos_i@hotmail.com>:
Why do you want to do that? Can't you use std::array?

On 01/21/2015 08:04 PM, Joaquim Duran Comas wrote:
I would like to create a fixed_array in strorage.hpp file. Is there any inconvenient?

Joaquim Duran
_______________________________________________
ublas mailing list
ublas@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
Sent to: athanasios.iliopoulos.ctr.gr@nrl.navy.mil
_______________________________________________
ublas mailing list
ublas@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
Sent to: jdurancomas@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
ublas mailing list
ublas@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
Sent to: nasos_i@hotmail.com