Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-11 14:25:05

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, David Abrahams wrote:
> There is also this interface:
> 3.
> *i ?? // returns a matrix or vector element object.
> value(i) // return the element value
> row(i) // returns the row index
> column(i) // return the column index
> index(i) // return the index (for vectors)

Yes, I like this.

> I very much like the free function interface, but there is always the LWG
> 225/229 issue to be aware of. I am growing more convinced that under the
> current language rules, having an additional tag argument which ties the
> function to a namespace's semantics is the only good answer... but that's
> another topic I guess.

Another option is to just specify that these functions are always in the
boost namespace, and people have have define their overloads in boost.

As for the sparse/dense iterators... between Dave and Andrew's comments it
seems that sticking with a unified interface is the way to go.


 Jeremy Siek www:
 Ph.D. Candidate, IU B'ton email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Summer Manager, AT&T Research phone: (973) 360-8185

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at