From: Randy Roberts (rroberts_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-04 14:03:23
--- In boost_at_[hidden], Gary Powell <Gary.Powell_at_s...> wrote:
> > Yes, I'm very familiar with PETE, however I'd vote against using
> > expression templates (ET) for the boost multi-dim array library.
> > reason is that there are already good ET-based array libraries:
> > Blitz. However, there is a need out there for a more portable,
> > and faster to compiler array library. I think the boost array
> > should fill this need.
> Ok, what if we did not implement the binary operator's "+", "-",
> "/" returning temporaries because of their inefficiency. Instead do
> "+=", "-=", "*=", and "/="?
Expression Templates (ET) features need not be an issue. The user
of the container class can always "glom" on ET to the container
via Geoff Furnish's technique in
"Disambiguated Glommable Expression Templates Reintroduced"
Then the (ET) engine and the container itself become orthoganal
-- Randy M. Roberts | "His men would follow him anywhere, rroberts_at_[hidden] | but only out of morbid curiosity." rsqrd_at_[hidden] | -- a performance review work: (505)665-4285
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk