Re: A class template for an N-dimensional generic resizable array

From: Giovanni Bavestrelli (gibav_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-01 17:28:21

--- In boost_at_[hidden], Kevlin Henney <kevlin_at_c...> wrote:
> In message <903j1b+g56r_at_e...>, Giovanni Bavestrelli <giovanni.bav
> estrelli_at_i...> writes
> >Array<int,3> A3(ArraySizes(10)(20)(30)); // 3D Array of ints
> 
> One area of possible improvement that I felt when reading the 
article
> originally was in this area. Although I recognise there is no 
obvious
> syntax, I am not enamoured of this one. What about <<? Or how about
> something quite different:
> 
>         X(10) + X(20) + X(30)
> 

I responded to this in a previous message.

> Where X is an appropriate but short name we haven't yet thought of 
that
> indicates dimension :->
> 
> In thinking about the whole dimension and sizing issue, I was 
wondering
> about the following classification:
> 
>         size_type is the size_type in a given dimension
>         resize resizes the base dimension wrt size_type
>         size returns the length of the base dimension
> 

The base dimension or the total dimension? If by base dimension you 
mean the first dimension, why should it be treated differently?

>         shape_type is the type that holds the size for each 
dimension
>         reshape resizes all of the dimensions
>         shape returns the sizes of all the dimensions
> 

This looks nice, but does not seem necessary if you don't define the 
concept above.

> This seems in the spirit of the STL.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Kevlin

Thanks,

Giovanni

> ____________________________________________________________
> 
>   Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
>   Curbralan Limited               mobile: [phone]
>   mailto:kevlin_at_c...     fax:    [phone]
>   http://www.curbralan.com
> ____________________________________________________________